2. Benefits and subsidies, to assisthousing utility payments by households.In 2007 compensation of the differencebetween real housing utility costs and pricespaid by households amounted to 12% of thetotal real cost of housing utilities or 36% of allbudget funds allocated for the sector. Thiscompensation represents subsidization of allhouseholds regardless of their incomes, butmostly benefits households, which enjoy betterliving conditions (i.e. wealthier households).However, compensation of the differencebetween real housing utility costs and pricespaid by households has been declining inrecent years and has ceased to be the mainsubsidization instrument. The biggest share offinancial support for housing utilities is now inthe form of direct assistance to individuals whomeet certain criteria (various categories ofdisability, etc.) to help them meet their housingutility bills. In 2007 such assistance represented15.3% of all housing utility costs (46.4% of allbudget funds allocated for housing utilities).Other direct assistance, specifically to poorhouseholds, was only 5.7% of housing utilitycosts (17.3% of all budget expenditures onhousing utilities).It is worth giving a brief account ofhow direct assistance for payment of housingutilities operates in <strong>Russia</strong>. The country hashad a programme of housing subsidies since1994. According to the initial regulations,subsidies are provided to households whosejustifiable housing bills exceed 22% ofaggregate household income. The number ofrecipients rose to a peak of 15.2% in 2003,suggesting that every seventh householdrequired social support. Research intoTable 3.7Main parameters of social programmes related to housing utilities2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007Families receivinghousing utility subsidies,thousands3212.4 3963.4 5251.3 7092.6 6801.5 6063.6 5457.7 4560.9% of all families 7.7 9.1 11.4 15.2 13.7 11.9 10.6 8.8Average monthly subsidiesper family, rubles80 124 237 361 435 550 675 641Number of people inhouseholds with memberswho receive housing utilitybenefits, thousands46015.1 48810.7 49795.1 44011.7 43913.3 37615.6 39513.3 38846.4Number of people,receiving housingutility benefits,thousands [sub-setof previous line]29914 28151.5 29156.4 27860.3 30171.5 29416Average monthlybenefit supportper recipient,rubles32 47 67 98 126 178 216 259Source: Calculations based on Rosstat data, Central Statistics Database, http://www.gks.ru/dbscripts/Cbsd/64 National Human Development <strong>Report</strong> in the <strong>Russia</strong>n Federation 2009
subsidization practices in the regions 10showed that without subsidies people wouldstop paying for housing utilities and thesector would have to be financed directlyfrom the budget. Nevertheless, theprogramme has undergone constantmodifications, regional standards for cost ofservices have become increasingly varied,and rules for provision of subsidies havebecome increasingly strict, so that the scaleof subsidies has diminished in comparisonwith household expenditures. This can beseen from development of the averagesubsidy per family (Table 3.7). Since 2004there has been a reduction of budgetspending on housing subsidies for the poorand narrowing of the group of households,which are recipients. This has been obtainedmainly by raising the allowable share ofhousing utility expenses in householdbudgets to the federal standard of 22% ofaggregate family income, as well as byintroduction of flexible regional standards forhousing utility costs.Secondly, there is a system of benefits,now called ‘measures for social support withregard to payments for housing and communalservices’. These are a legacy of the Soviet era and,unlike subsidies, their recipients are defined byfalling under certain definitions (disability, etc.)and not on the basis of need. Previously thebenefits were provided as discounts on housingutility tariffs. The discount was 100% of housingutility costs for people meeting certaindefinitions, while others (the most numerousgroup) received 50% discount, and other groupsreceived less. Monetization of benefits, broughtin by Federal Law No.123 in 2005, had littleeffect on the housing utility benefit system:some regulations on provision were altered (e.g.non-extension to other family members) andFigure 3.7Coverage of social supportprogrammes relatedto housing utilities40,035,030,025,020,015,010,05,00,031,47,719,3 19,033,4 34,39,111,420,630,4 30,515,2Source: Calculations based on Rosstat data, Central Statistics Database,http://www.gks.ru/dbscripts/Cbsd/there was partial monetization in certainregions, which led to reduction of the numberof recipients (Figure 3.7).What is the outlook for social supportmeasures in the crisis context? As explainedabove, housing utility tariffs will continue togrow, so that larger amounts of social supportwill be necessary. The government isconsidering the possibility of giving federalsubsidy entitlement to households, whichspend over 15% of their income on housingutility, lowering the threshold from current22%. But preliminary studies show that such astep would require 300 billion rubles ofadditional funding, which is unaffordable forthe budget 11 . The threshold remainsunchanged to date, although regionalgovernments are free to set lower thresholds,covering the difference out of their ownbudgets. The system of housing utilitybenefits (‘measures for social support…’described above) will be monetized, so thatpeople who qualify for them will pay theirhousing utilities in full but will receivecompensatory cash payments. In general,26,319,5 20,3 19,513,711,927,7 27,510,621,2 20,72000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007Share of households with members who receive housing utility benefits, %Share of people receiving housing utility benefits, %Share of families receiving subsidies, %8,810World Bank project, ‘Improvement of targeted social assistance programmes and employment support to fight poverty’, carriedout in 2006-2007 by specialists from the Institute for Urban Economics (Moscow), Independent Institute for Social Policy (Moscow),and the Urban Institute (USA) in five regions of the <strong>Russia</strong>n Federation: Tver, Tatarstan, Tomsk, Kalmykia and Karachaevo-Cherkessia.A.Ya.Burdyak, who worked on field studies in Tver and Kalmykia, analyzed the housing subsidies programme and efficiency ofadministrative spending.11Interview with the Minister for Regional Development, Victor Basargin, Rossiyskaya Gazeta, Federal Issue, April 28, 2009http://www.rg.ru/2009/04/28/basargin.html65
- Page 1 and 2:
National Human Development Reportin
- Page 3 and 4:
National Human Development Reportin
- Page 5 and 6:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThe authors express
- Page 7 and 8:
Dear Reader,You have before you the
- Page 9 and 10:
PREFACEThis is the 13 th National H
- Page 11 and 12:
country’s fuel & energy regions r
- Page 13 and 14:
environmental degradation and enhan
- Page 15 and 16: Chapter 1The Energy Sector,the Econ
- Page 17 and 18: By 2008 Russia had increased its sh
- Page 19 and 20: the share of energy in the national
- Page 21 and 22: exported, increased. However, this
- Page 23 and 24: elimination of structural and terri
- Page 25 and 26: • Establishment of competitive me
- Page 27 and 28: number of developed countries, incl
- Page 29 and 30: Although the United Nations Climate
- Page 31 and 32: industrial region of the Urals - Sv
- Page 33 and 34: 2.2. Budget capacityand structure o
- Page 35 and 36: (the Federal State Statistics Servi
- Page 37 and 38: Immigration by young and highly ski
- Page 39 and 40: energy regions exacerbate the incom
- Page 41 and 42: Khanty-Mansi and Yamal-Nenets Auton
- Page 43 and 44: the Ministry for Regional Developme
- Page 45 and 46: various other long-term problems in
- Page 47 and 48: is also associated with the fuel an
- Page 49 and 50: Republic of Mordovia 8051 0.732 68.
- Page 51 and 52: Legislative control of impact audit
- Page 53 and 54: Chapter 3Personal Incomes, the Ener
- Page 55 and 56: than any other sources of income -
- Page 57 and 58: Are wages now the main instrument f
- Page 59 and 60: comparison of month-on-month develo
- Page 61 and 62: • The unemployed, people who aree
- Page 63 and 64: Employment in the energy sector acc
- Page 65: The share of household expenditures
- Page 69 and 70: in power use between regions now de
- Page 71 and 72: Electricity prices for households h
- Page 73 and 74: • Steady decrease in the percenta
- Page 75 and 76: 1. The number of graduates with eng
- Page 77 and 78: As well as requiring better fuelcom
- Page 79 and 80: Box 4.1. The village of Kolvain Uss
- Page 81 and 82: continue to use solid fuel for a lo
- Page 83 and 84: Box 4.3. Ambient air pollution andp
- Page 85 and 86: either by large power generating fa
- Page 87 and 88: Box 4.6. A city at riskNovocherkass
- Page 89 and 90: In order to assess impact of thesee
- Page 91 and 92: generation facilities through safer
- Page 93 and 94: achieved in developed countries. So
- Page 95 and 96: equires 2-6 times more capital inve
- Page 97 and 98: government) should set targets and
- Page 99 and 100: networks. In 2007 government budget
- Page 101 and 102: enhancement is also important. Ener
- Page 103 and 104: energy efficiency of the transport
- Page 105 and 106: Box 5.1. Programme of the Ministry
- Page 107 and 108: educational and informational suppo
- Page 109 and 110: mechanism for using national quota
- Page 111 and 112: Figure 6.2Share of electricity gene
- Page 113 and 114: One of the major benefits of renewa
- Page 115 and 116: odies; outdoor air; rocks and soil;
- Page 117 and 118:
Design and construction of geotherm
- Page 119 and 120:
Box 6.3. Prospects for nuclear powe
- Page 121 and 122:
consists of out-dated equipment at
- Page 123 and 124:
ConclusionThe world’s nuclear pow
- Page 125 and 126:
7.1. Impact of the fuel& energy sec
- Page 127 and 128:
Table 7.5Solid waste from productio
- Page 129 and 130:
Table 7.7Areas of disturbed and rec
- Page 131 and 132:
nature of the impact (atmospheric e
- Page 133 and 134:
Further, the economic cost ofenviro
- Page 135 and 136:
trends continued the damage would a
- Page 137 and 138:
What the government needs to do ino
- Page 139 and 140:
Figure 7.2.1Specific atmospheric em
- Page 141 and 142:
money value of industrial output) c
- Page 143 and 144:
Figure 7.2.4Trends in specific atmo
- Page 145 and 146:
Chapter 8The Energy Industry and Su
- Page 147 and 148:
eing equal) it only reflects that p
- Page 149 and 150:
(MDGs), issued by the UN in 2000. T
- Page 151 and 152:
8.4. The energy factorin integral i
- Page 153 and 154:
Canada, the USA and Great Britain h
- Page 155 and 156:
Box 8.2. Energy efficiencyindicator
- Page 157 and 158:
Box 8.4. Energy efficiency rating o
- Page 159 and 160:
41 Penza Region 116.0 -35.2 -4.542
- Page 161 and 162:
Appendix to Chapter 1Table 1.1. GDP
- Page 163 and 164:
Attachment to Chapter 4Table 4.1Rus
- Page 165 and 166:
Attachment to Chapter 4Volga Federa
- Page 167 and 168:
Attachment to Chapter 4Belovo Belov
- Page 169 and 170:
The previous National Human Develop