Based on national legislation passed in the summer of 2004, Russia implemented wide-ranging changes to its system of category-based social benefits in January 2005. Implementation difficulties made headlines around the world. This article discusses the structure of the reforms and examines the extent to which they: (a) reduce or eliminate the categorical allocation of public resources; (b) replace in-kind benefits with cash transfers; and (c) target benefits, in whatever form, to low-income people. The overall conclusions are that the reforms score very badly against criteria (a) and (c), but get a middling score for cashing-out benefits.
Alexandrova, A., Kovalenko, E., Kuznetsova, P. (2005) `Monetization in the Russian Regions and its Determinants' (in Russian), an analytic report. Moscow: The Institute for Urban Economics.
2.
Freinkman, L., Treisman, D. and Titov, S. (1999) `Subnational Budgeting in Russia', Technical Paper No. 452. Washington, DC: World Bank.
3.
Gallagher, J. and Stryuk, R. (2001) Strengthening Local Administration of Social Assistance in Russia. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
4.
Gontmakher, E. (2004) `Privileges by Demand', Rossiiskaya gazeta (20 Oct.), No. 231.
5.
Hemerijck, A. (2005) `From Retrenchment to Recalibration. How Welfare States Learn', paper presented at the CEVIPOF project meeting on The Politics of Bismarckian Reforms (Dec.), Paris.
6.
IndependentInstitute forSocial Policy (2006) Incomes and Social Services: Inequality, Vulnerabiity, Poverty (in Russian). Moscow .
7.
Lykova, T., Petrova, K., Sivaev, S. and Struyk, R. (2004) `Participation in a Decentralized Housing Allowance Program in a Transition Economy', Housing Studies19 (4): 617—34.
8.
Milanovic, B. (1998) Income, Inequality, and Poverty during the Transition from Planned to Market EconomyWashington, DC: World Bank, Regional and Sectoral Studies.
9.
Ragozina, L. (2004) Social Accounts as a Consumer Subsidy Model. The Implementation Experience in Russia. Moscow: The Institute for Urban Economics.
10.
Saburov, E., Tipenko, N. and Cherniavskii, A. (2001) `Budget Federalism and Interbudgetary Relations', Problems of Economic Transition43 (11): 76—92.
11.
Struyk, R. (2005) Factors in Successful Program Implementation: the Russian Experience During the Transition. Washington, DC : Urban Institute.
12.
Struyk, R. and Petrova, E. (forthcoming) `Client Satisfaction with Intake in Russia's Housing Allowance Program', Problems of Economic Transition.
13.
Struyk, R., Grishina, E. and Kovalenko, E. (unpublished) `Effect on Beneficiaries of the Monetization of Privileges in Russia: Initial Experience in Saratov Oblast'. Submitted to Social Policy and Administration.
14.
Tomes, I. (2005) `How does EU Enlargement Impact on Social Europe ', in E. Paola and A. Savio (eds) Refining the Social Dimensions in an Enlarged EU. Helsinki: STAKES and the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health of Finland.
15.
Volchkova N., Gorshkova, E., Lobanov, S., Turdyeva, N. and Khaleeva, Y. (2006) Microsimulation/Preprint #WP/2006/063. Moscow: New Economic School.
16.
World Bank (1994) Russia: Social Protection During Transition and Beyond. Washington, DC : The World Bank.
17.
World Bank (1999) Russia's Social Protection Malaise: How to Begin a Turnaround? Washington, DC: World Bank, Eastern Europe and Central Asia Region .
18.
World Bank (2000) Making Transition Work for Everyone. Washington, DC: World Bank.
19.
World Bank. (2004a) Dimensions of Poverty in Kazakhstan, Vol. 1: Policy Briefing. Washington, DC: World Bank.
20.
World Bank. (2004b) `Russian Federation: Poverty Assessment', Report No. 28923-RU. Washington, DC: World Bank.
