Living Level: Regional Differences (By Example Of Siberian Federal District)

Abstract

The article is devoted to the consideration of the methodological framework for assessing the differences in the living level of the population in the regions. According to the authors' study, the existing regional classifications for the most part do not presuppose a comparative analysis of the situation in the territories at the federal level and a dynamic assessment of its change. This circumstance prompted the authors on the idea of creating their own unique methodology that makes it possible to compare the situation in the regions with the federal level in the static and dynamic sections. It also allowed forming the corresponding two-dimensional typology of regions, which enables to specify the situation in the territory at the federal level, depending on how its indicators change in absolute terms (statics) and relative estimates (dynamics). This method was tried out using the example of the data on the development of the regions of the Siberian Federal District for the period 2003-2013 (13 years). The results of this study let us conclude that the majority of the SFD regions have a marked lag in living level from the other subjects of the Russian Federation within the framework of both analytical sections (in absolute and relative terms). In some regions, the situation varies considerably.

Keywords: Living levelquality of liferegionincomewellbeing

Introduction

The population welfare measured by such indicators as the level of income, the volume of consumption of economic goods, the degree of social stratification, availability of durable goods, etc., remains the main and unchanged indicator of social well-being of the territory as well as the efficiency of management of its development. The economic welfare of citizens finds its expression in such integrated indicator as the living level (Bobkov, Gulyugina, 2012; Grinchel, Nazarova, 2015), which canonically and fairly, in the authors’ opinion, is interpreted by most researchers as the degree of satisfaction of material (basic, primary, natural) needs of the population.

In addition to the living level, there are a lot of concepts associated and overlapping with it in many aspects. First of all, the authors are talking about the quality of life of the population, i.e. the term which is more comprehensive and to some extent "ephemeral", subjectively perceived but objectively difficult to measure (Shipitsyna, 2013; Kireenko, Nevzorova, Orlova, Fedotov, 2015). The study of the quality of life in economics largely boils down to empirical measurements of the living level - that is, a "material stratum" of existence (Grigoryeva, 2012, Shabunova, Lastochkina, 2014). Some scientists also supplement this analytical model with the indicators of the demographic sphere, education, health, and ecology (Kozlova, Gladkova, Makarova, Tuhtarova, 2015; Ryumina, 2016). However, such an "extended" interpretation can hardly claim to be an exhaustive empirical-theoretical description. Therefore, it seems reasonable to set forth the authors’ own vision of the structural relationship between the level and quality of life, based on the profound authors’ research over some years.

From the authors’ point of view (and it coincides with the research "mainstream"), the living level reflects the degree of the population's ability to satisfy their vital needs using the available material resources (Naberezhnaya 2011), which, in the logic of A.Maslow hierarchy of needs, opens the way to satisfy the needs of a higher level - social and moral. It serves as a necessary basis on which all the other superstructures of human socialization "rest", setting the vector to complete subjective satisfaction with all aspects of life, called by foreign researchers and intuitively perceived by the individual as "happiness" (Leshhenko, 2014).

According to the authors’ position, the structure of the quality of life implies the allocation of its three types (in accordance with needs of the same name): life-supporting, social and moral. Essentially and structurally logically, the living level is a component of the life-supporting quality of life, along with the needs for physically favourable environment, the satisfaction of which mainly depends on the development of health protection, ecology and law-and-order.

Most of the works devoted to the living level are of economic nature and contain a vast empirical analysis, first of all, of available statistical data (Basareva, 2008; Morozova, Glushakova, Fadeikina, 2016). This fact is not accidental. Within the framework of managing the living level, the opportunities for state, organizational and individual regulation directly correlate with the dynamics of economic growth and development. This fact determines the high efficiency of using economic levers to form and maintain a decent living level for the population of the region .

Problem Statement

In recent years, there has been no talk of economic stability in the Russian regions; this is confirmed by the empirical calculations of 2014-2016, which record a marked decline in most economic and social indicators (Fedulova, Medvedev, Kosinskiy, Kononova, Pobedash, 2016; Tatarkin, 2016, Solou, 2016). However, in these conditions, the situation in different territories may differ significantly from the average, both for the federal district and for the country comparison.

The differences in the living level in Russian regions are objective and conditioned by a multitude of factors: historical, geographical and economic, and cultural-value (Yershov, 2016). The differentiation of the living level within the federal districts is a phenomenon that has been studied for a long time but has not lost its relevance. Therefore, let us turn to its consideration by the example of one of the federal districts known for its resource wealth - the Siberian Federal District (SFD) which includes 12 regions that have both similar and significant distinctive features.

Research Questions

When solving the above-mentioned problem, it is important not only to fix the current position of the territory in terms of the citizens’ welfare (similar studies were repeatedly conducted by different scientists) but also to assess the growth rates of these indicators. It is the rate of changes that determines the long-term state of the region. In this regard, the main issues of this study concern the study of differences in the living level in the regions of the Siberian Federal District in static (in absolute terms) and dynamic (comparison of growth rates) sections.

Purpose of the Study

The main purpose of the study is to conduct a regional differentiation of the SFD regions in terms of the living level of the population on the basis of statistical data for 2003-2015 (13 years) in the static and dynamic sections.

Research Methods

To classify the SFD regions, the authors developed and implemented a method of two-dimensional static and dynamic comparative analysis based on statistics (Figure 01 ). To assess different parameters and living level of the region population, the corresponding systems of indicators were generated, taking into account the existing data of official statistics by regions.

Evaluation of the level of life was conducted based on 7 indicators: average incomes per capita, thous.Rub.; specific weight of the population with incomes below the subsistence minimum, % (poverty scale); assets ratio (income differentiation); the number of passenger cars per 1,000 persons; average housing space per capita, sq.m; retail turnover per capita, Rub; paid services turnover per capita, Rub.

To the authors’ viewpoint, the presented structure of indicators has 2 obvious advantages. Firstly, it contains maximum non-overlapping indicators of economic development and quality of life, found in open sources of public statistics by regions, time periods and indicators of the living level. Secondly, its structure does not include complicated elements, names and substructures; it complies fully with the standards of data classification of the Russian Statistical Services. All these factors together make it easier to use the suggested system of indicators of the life quality in analytical constructions.

Thus, the above-mentioned list of indicators for evaluation of differences in the living level of the population was generated mainly on the basis of accessibility, comprehensiveness and completeness of all key aspects of the analyzed categories. For purposes of analysis, the indicators were grouped by the authors in two subgroups depending on the fact whether their growth or decline would be considered as a positive tendency for the living level.

Each indicator has a similar size and a numerical order at the regional, district and federal level, which allows conducting the comparative analysis. The method of two-dimensional static and dynamic comparative analysis suggested by the authors includes the following stages.

See Full Size >

Findings

The results of the final analysis of the population living level in the Siberian Federal District regions for 2003-2015 are presented in Table 01 . To clearly visualize the results, the authors would place each SFD region in a coordinate system, where static estimates of the region is on the abscissa, and dynamic estimates of its development are on the ordinate (Table 01 , Figure 02 ).

As one can see, based on the results of the analysis (Figure 2 ), the living level of the regions of the Siberian Federal District is significantly inferior to the average Russian level in terms of absolute indicators . To a lesser degree, this lag is observed in relation to the Kemerovo, Novosibirsk, Omsk, Tomsk Regions and the Krasnoyarsk Krai (by about 10%), to a greater degree – in relation to the Republics of Tuva (by 58%), Altai (36%), Buryatia (by 27% %).

The growth rates of the living level in the Irkutsk Region exceed the analogous indicators in the majority of the subjects of the Russian Federation by 27%, which makes the region the leader of the dynamic development. Exceeding the national average values of indicators of the living level is also observed in Novosibirsk Region (by 7%). The living level of the population in Kemerovo Region, Altai, and the Krasnoyarsk Krai "growing" is comparable to the Russian Federation rates.

As one can see , based on the results of the analysis (Figure 2 ), the living level in the regions of the Siberian Federal District is significantly inferior to the average Russian level in terms of absolute indicators . To a lesser degree, this lag is observed in relation to Kemerovo, Novosibirsk, Omsk, Tomsk regions and Krasnoyarsk Krai (by about 10%), to a greater degree – in relation to the Republics of Tuva (by 58%), Altai (36%), Buryatia (by 27% %).

Under the author's classification of territories, in a pure form, only two regions of the SFD are referred to “promising” (lagging behind in static terms but developing at a faster rate): Irkutsk and Novosibirsk Regions. This allows predicting the growth of the quality of life in these subjects in future. Most of the territories are located in the quadrant of "outsiders" in terms of welfare (behind both in statics and in dynamics) which threatens further deteriorating their position in the context of meeting the material needs of the citizens.

See Full Size >

Conclusion

Summarizing the above-mentioned results of the study of the regional differentiation in SFD in terms of the living level of the population, it should be stated that the inhabitants of these territories find themselves in an "unenviable" position at the countrywide level. Their welfare does not provide for an extended satisfaction of material needs, and, therefore, does not allow proceeding to the qualitative satisfaction of social and moral needs, and forces to care constantly for the current survival. This situation is particularly "unfair", taking into consideration the resource wealth of the Siberian regions and their strategic importance for Russia. The current situation urgently requires the attention of the authorities not only of the regional but also of the federal level since only an integrated approach to socio-economic policy can have a tangible positive impact on improving the level and quality of life of the population in the Siberian regions.

References

• Basareva, V. G. (2008). Interrelation between a standard of living of the population and development of small business]. Region: Economics and Sociology, 35, 168-182
• Bobkov, V. N.Gulyugina, A. A. (2012). Inequality of quality and living standards of the population of regions. Economy of the Region, 35(30), 170-178
• Fedulova, E. A.Medvedev, A. V.Kosinskiy, P. D.Kononova, S. A.Pobedash, P. N. (2016). Cluster approach to the development of food market of the region: theoretical and applied aspects. Foods and Raw Materials, 35, 157-166
• Grigoryeva, О, P. (2012). Economic and statistical assessment of the living standards of the regions of the Russian Federation. Economics and Entrepreneurship, 35(27), 57-60
• Grinchel, B. M.Nazarova, E. A. (2015). Typology of regions in terms of the level and dynamics of improving the quality of life. Economic and Social Changes: Facts, Trends, Forecast, 35(39), 111-125
• Kireenko, A. P.Nevzorova, E. N.Orlova, E. N.Fedotov, D. J. (2015). Reflection of the shadow economy in the indicators of the quality of life of the population of regions. Region: Economics and Sociology, 35(87), 213-238
• Kozlova, O. A.Gladkova, T. V.Makarova, M. N.Tuhtarova, E. H. (2015). Methodical approach to the study of the quality of life of the population of the region. Economy of the Region, 35(42), 182-193
• Leshhenko, J. A. (2014). On approaches to the study of the affective component of the quality of life of society. Region: Economics and Sociology, 35(82), 155-169
• Morozova, E. A.Glushakova, O. V.Fadeikina, N. V. (2016). Food consumption as an indicator of the quality of life of the population in regions. Foods and Raw Materials, 35, 171-180
• Naberezhnaya, A. T. (2011). Real incomes as a factor of raising the level and quality of life of the population of the region. In the world of scientific discoveries, 35, 413-
• Ryumina, E. V. (2016). Ecological aspects of assessing the quality of life. Economy of the Region, 35, 1113-1122
• Shabunova, A. A.Lastochkina, M. A. (2014). Overcoming social inequality as an impulse to sociocultural modernization. Economic and Social Changes: Facts, Trends, Forecast(35), 33-54
• Shipitsyna, S. E. (2013). Economic evaluation of human life - an indicator of the diagnosis of crisis phenomena. Economy of the Region, 35(34), 43-54
• Solou, R. (2016). Non-systematic thoughts on how everything can go further. Economic Sociology, 35, 22-29
• Tatarkin, A. I. (2016). Regional orientation of the economic policy of the Russian Federation as an institution for spatial development of territories. Economy of the Region, 35, 9-27
• Yershov, Y. S. (2016). Features of regional economic development in Russia in 1999-2013. Regional Research of Russia, 35, 281-291