The Russian system of social assistance is the most cumbersome in the world: about 800 measures and 300 categories of recipients, including athletes, widow of prosecutors and even the winners of beauty contests. But the real needy not so much. The situation will change only if the assistance will be targeted.
ALEXANDER ZOTIN
Each rouble allocated from the budget on social programs, increases the income of the poor by only 11 cents. Action targeted support for the poor (special section on social assistance) a little better — from each of the ruble to the poor gets 28 cents. The programme for reducing poverty in Russia did not reach their goals, and even close to failure — these are the main results of the panel discussion “Social policy: effective ways of combating poverty”, held at the recent Moscow financial forum. Blame the inefficient system of social protection, the country inherited a legacy from the Soviet Union and further mutilated in the post-Soviet years.
The Russian system of social assistance in some respects resembles the Scandinavian, says a leading world Bank economist Ruslan emcov. At least thing in common — high, the coverage of the social assistance and a low proportion (about 16%) of targeted (i.e., aimed at supporting the poor) social security. But in Scandinavia it is a very low level of poverty and inequality, and targeting at a time when all more or less equal, it is not particularly necessary. Poorer countries with high levels of inequality, like Russia, have a different structure of social assistance in South Africa, Chile, and Uruguay, the share of targeted measures to help the more than 90% of the entire net.
Dump benefits
“The system of measures of social support of population “version 1.0″– the Soviet legacy, which was formed in the 1990s— said the head of the Center for Finance of the social sphere Olesya Feoktistova.— And today almost 800 300 measures for categories of recipients at the Federal level and about 100 in each region is generally not a system but a conglomerate”. And the “conglomerate” — a rather mild word. In Greece, famous for the ineffectiveness of social support— 150 measures.
Although the principle of targeting aid was enshrined in legislation in 1999, in fact, it does not work. Attempts to reform the system in the 2000s (monetization of social benefits “version 2.0” in the terminology Feoktistovoy) to more targeted fell from 800 support measures today, only 5 address.
Social protection is 14% of GDP (30% of budget expenditures), for targeted support of the poor is only 0.4%
Get social seven out of ten people, when you consider pensions and benefits; if we exclude pensions, four out of ten (more precisely, 42%): it is enough to get into one of almost 300 categories of recipients. The authors of the report of the Scientific and research financial Institute (nifi) and the world Bank “Effective social support of the population. Version 3.0: targeting, neediness, universality” identified several major groups: “For special services” — 139 measures and 37 categories of recipients “For special conditions of work (service)” — 117 and 82, “Compensation of harm, loss, damage” — 450 and 131. Of them are “veterans of labor” — 9 million citizens, “regional labor veterans” — 4 million, “rural experts” — 1.5 million.
“The mechanism for granting incentives used by the authorities for the formation of loyalty groups with high electoral activity”,— stated in the study.
Russia — a generous soul!
Among the many beneficiaries are not poor people. Of course, not forgotten the officials. The size of surcharges to pensions of former civil servants in the regions vary and range from a few hundred rubles to tens of thousands. Some of the most significant benefits, according to the authors of the report, in the Saratov region: the rank and file civil servants get extra pay 7 thousand rubles. And especially cared about the residents of the area more: persons working as the members of the regional Duma, who served in the chamber, the regional government — to 96 thousand rubles.
Good citizens live with various titles and awards, the Champions of the Olympic, Paralympic, Deaflympic and other games and their coaches, members of the Russian creative unions of writers, artists, composers, theatre workers and members of their families, and even widows and widowers. While entertainers often get a whole collection of co-payments both on Federal and regional levels. A similar duplication of benefits from the Federal budget, as noted by the authors of the report, in the case of subsidized regions is a violation of the legislation of the Russian Federation.
Goals on poverty
*Concept of long-term social development of the Russian Federation until 2020.
Sources: the Concept of long-term social development of the Russian Federation until 2020, the Fri, the world Bank.
In the regions, however, benefits in General often appointed ad hoc, or, simply, “from the ceiling.” Among the support measures of families with children — ridiculous monthly child benefits, which in many regions are 115-150 rubles, different target payments to students for meals in the school, compensation for services in preschool, holiday payment for New year’s, family Day, September 1, and even for Easter (regardless of the religion or religious beliefs), compensation and benefits for housing and communal services, payments for child birth and when it reaches a certain age, plus services and benefits in kind, e.g. provision of medicines, nutrition, free or reduced fares, reduced rest, etc. Only in Moscow to support families with children is 17 payments and 7 measures of natural character. Of course, the support is categorical, that is, the poor, and rich families indiscriminately.
Sometimes the system comes to the absurd — an independent category of recipients of social assistance becomes a particular family or even individual. In a separate legal act is written on the establishment of a monthly benefit or pension Supplement “Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov”, for example, “for significant contribution to socio-economic development of the region”. The strangeness of the allocation categories of citizens applying for social assistance has no borders: heads of state enterprises, and widow prosecutors, and even the winners of the all-Russian festival of beauty “Beauty of Russia 2014” (housing).
Almost all of these groups are not included in any international classification of measures of social support. At last, by the way, there is a special recommendation of the International labour organization (ILO), N202, which States that the measures of state support related to basic social guarantees is to support: 1) child; 2) sickness and health care; 3) maternity; 4) disability; 5) age; 6) in case of loss of the breadwinner; 7) unemployment; 8) when the industrial injury, 9) workers, if their wages are below the subsistence level.
Support for other categories of citizens can be made, but from the budgets of the relevant departments, and not through the system of social protection of the population, said Feoktistov.
The living wage is also determined by the regions, and also quite arbitrary. And the interests of the regional authorities is often far from the goals of poverty reduction. “Understating (the subsistence level.— “Money”), they can reduce spending on assistance to the poor, and raising is to exert political pressure on the Federal center”,— stated in the report.
Pension for working pensioners is, in fact, also a form of conventional care. On average, non-poor citizens: they are poor not only because they get a salary and a pension, but also because the wages of older cohorts are generally higher than in young professionals. “Basic pension should be determined by the principle of need, not to pay the same for all, as it is now,— said the head of the economic expert group Evsey Gurvich.— The average per capita income of pensioners above the average income of a citizen in half”. Gurvich considers that it would be possible to reallocate social aid in favor of those who really need it, for example to improve relatively low pensions to the disabled.
Support via uncle
Another negative feature of Russian conglomerate sphere of indirect assistance. Many of the benefits are still not provided by compensation of expenses for purchase of goods or services to the most needy, and by subsidizing prices (tariffs) for goods/services. For example, in 2015 the expenditures of the budgets of regions 855 billion has gone for housing and communal services, of which 135 billion rubles, non-repayable transfers to organisations. Of them, according to the report, at least 70% of subsidies to utility providers for payment of “wage loss”.
Potentially corrupt scheme could be replaced by direct funding to end consumers of the services if they really need. And by the way, it would help to eliminate one more disparity: now grants “smeared” on all consumers, that is those who have apartment more, receive more state aid.
Another example — support measures (subsidies) of the mortgage. First, according to the authors of the report, in itself is as absurd as the recipients of the mortgage are not the poorest people, and secondly, the exemption reason is not the ultimate home buyers, and banks and, indirectly, developers.
Another large-scale example of such “social for the rich” the economists nifi and the world Bank are not considered. Talking about hidden energy subsidies, namely the tax regime in Russia, which artificially lowers the domestic price of gasoline at the expense of export duties. So the rich get the lion’s share of energy subsidies (since the rich more machines and these machines are more powerful), and the budget arrears of hundreds of billions of rubles that could be spent on targeted assistance to the needy.
Targeting as a panacea
Almost all economists agree that solving the problem of poverty in Russia — reform of the social assistance system in the direction of its targeting and reducing the conglomerate of benefits to the common measures, criteria of which would need (low income). At least this is the trend of development of social assistance in many countries, for example in the UK, where recently six different social support measures were replaced with a measure based on the need criterion.
However, according to the Deputy Director of the IMEMO Russian Academy of Sciences Yevgeny Gontmakher, for some categories of citizens, in relation to which there is public consensus, for example for disabled people or large families, is to maintain social support regardless of need. Just because these categories, unlike many others, include a very high proportion of those who really need it.
The means test is not included in such “consensus group” is a separate issue. In the Volgograd region in the early 1990s tested targeted assistance to the poor based on means testing. As said the head of regional Committee of social protection of the population of Lily Zabotina, at first the government was working with only one need criterion is income. And then decided to look at the property “poor” and filed (by the way, paid) in Rosreestr. In the end, the concept of aid had to review — among the poor income were the owners of expensive cars, several properties, and even yachts. Therefore, it is necessary to look not only on income but also on the property.
The problem of poverty is not that the state lacks money for its solution. “We don’t want to save money we want to spend them efficiently,” said Feoktistov. But for this we need to convert (actually, break) the existing system of social assistance at the legislative level. Namely, as noted in the report: 1) be based on international standards of social welfare; 2) to assess the need, taking into account all income and property; 3) to introduce universal benefits for the poor; 4) amend intergovernmental relations for poor people living in poor regions do not receive less aid than the poor of the rich regions.
Moreover, the decision can be quick. As the head of programs for social protection the world Bank Andi Mason, some countries have achieved sharp increase in the effectiveness of targeted programmes for three or four years, and many of them have a lot in common with Russia.
According to the report of the Fri and the world Bank to increase assistance to those who need it, it is impossible, preserving the categorical payments. Now through the introduction of criteria, the regions try to cope with their bloated social budgets. But the most “harmful” categorical payments established under Federal law (“For merit”, etc., where the proportion of non-poor among the recipients — 98%) remains intact. And under the knife are more useful from the point of view of anti-poverty benefits — benefits for families with children (the share of non-poor among the recipients below — 73-79%). Therefore, without the introduction of the criterion of need for almost all recipients of categorical benefits (perhaps with rare exceptions like those of disabled people) and cleaning of the list of categories will not do.
