Low oil prices and the recession in Russia which started in 2014 are increasing pressures for fiscal consolidation, after more than a decade of prosperity. This article assesses the distributional impact of the main tax and social spending programmes in Russia in 2014 by applying a state-of-the-art incidence analysis. Overall, the Russian welfare state achieves a moderate reduction in inequality through tax-benefit policies by international standards. Most redistribution occurs through pensions. Major limits on the redistributive effect of tax-benefit policy include the large share of tax revenues that come from (regressive) indirect taxes, the neutral impact of personal income taxes and the low share of spending that goes on social assistance targeted to low-income groups. The tax-benefit policy also has an important impact on the age distribution of income, as households of working-age people (with and without children) subsidize pensioner households.
BradleyD.HuberE.MollerS.NielsenF.StephensJ.D. (2003) ‘Distribution and Redistribution in Postindustrial Democracies’, World Politics55: 193–228.
2.
BurawoyM. (2001) ‘Transition without Transformation: Russia’s Involutionary Road to Capitalism’, East European Politics and Societies15: 269–90.
3.
CalvoP.Lopez-CalvaL.F.PosadasJ. (2015) ‘A Decade of Declining Earnings Inequality in the Russian Federation’, Policy Research Working Paper no. 7392, 13August. Washington, DC: World Bank.
4.
CeramiA. (2009) ‘Welfare State Developments in the Russian Federation: Oil-Led Social Policy and the ‘Russian Miracle’, Social Policy and Administration43: 105–20.
5.
CommanderS.JackmanR. (1997) ‘Firms and Government in the Provision of Benefits in Russia’, in ReinM.FriedmanB.LWorgotterA. (eds) Enterprise and Social Benefits after Communism, pp. 95–114. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6.
CookL.J. (2007) Postcommunist Welfare States: Reform Politics in Russia and Eastern Europe. Ithaca, NY; London: Cornell University Press.
7.
CookL.J. (2010a) ‘Emerging Welfare States: Eastern Europe and Russia’, in LewisJ.LeibfriedS.ObingerH.PiersonC.CastlesF.G. (eds) Oxford Handbook of Comparative Welfare States, pp. 671–88. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8.
CookL.J. (2010b) ‘Russia’s Welfare Regime: The Shift toward Statism’, in JappinenM.KulmalaM.SaarinenA. (eds) Gazing at Welfare, Gender and Agency in Post-Socialist Countries, pp. 14–37. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
9.
DecosterA. (2003) ‘How Progressive Are Indirect Taxes in Russia?’, Economics of Transition13: 705–29.
10.
DenisovaI.KolenikovS.YudaevaK. (2000) ‘Child Benefit and Child Poverty’, Centre for Economic and Financial Research (CEFIR) Working Paper WP/00/03, 12January. Moscow, Russia: New Economic School.
11.
DuncanD. (2014) ‘Behavioral Responses and the Distributional Effects of the Russian ‘Flat’ Tax’, Journal of Policy Modeling36: 226–40.
12.
Esping-AndersenG. (1990) The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.
13.
GarfinkelI.RainwaterL.SmeedingT. (2010) Wealth and Welfare States: Is America a Laggard or Leader?.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14.
Gel’manV.StarodubtsevA. (2016) ‘Opportunities and Constraints of Authoritarian Modernisation: Russian Policy Reforms in the 2000s’, Europe–Asia Studies68: 97–117.
15.
GerberT.P. (1998) ‘More Shock Than Therapy: Market Transition, Employment, and Income in Russia, 1991–1995’, American Journal of Sociology104: 1–50.
16.
GimpelsonV.KapeliushnikovR. (2014) ‘Between Light and Shadow: Informality in the Russian Labour Market’, IZA Discussion Paper no. 8279, June. Bonn: Institute for the Study of Labor.
17.
GoughI. (2013) ‘Social Policy Regimes in the Developing World’, in KennettP. (ed.) A Handbook of Comparative Social Policy, pp. 205–24. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
18.
HigginsS.LustigN.RubleW.SmeedingT. M. (2016) ‘Comparing the Incidence of Taxes and Social Spending in Brazil and the United States’, Review of Income and Wealth62: 22–46.
19.
ImmervollH.LevyH.LietzC.MantovaniD.O‘DonoghueC.Sutherland (2006) ‘Household Incomes and Redistribution in the European Union: Quantifying the Equalizing Properties of Taxes and Benefits’, in PapadimitriouD.B. (ed.) The Distributional Effects of Government Spending and Taxation, pp. 135–65. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
KakwaniN.C. (1977) ‘Measurement of Tax Progressivity: An International Comparison’, The Economic Journal87: 71–80.
22.
KammerA.NiehuesJ.PeichlA. (2012) ‘Welfare Regimes and Welfare State Outcomes in Europe’, Journal of European Social Policy22: 455–71.
23.
KenworthyL.PontussonJ. (2005) ‘Rising Inequality and the Politics of Redistribution in Affluent Countries’, Perspectives on Politics3: 449–71.
24.
LustigN. (2015) ‘Inequality and Fiscal Redistribution in Middle Income Countries: Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Indonesia, Mexico, Peru and South Africa’, Commitment to Equity Assessment (CEQ) Working Paper no. 31, 21August. New Orleans, LA: Tulane University.
25.
LustigN.HigginsS. (2013) ‘Commitment to Equity Assessment (CEQ): Estimating the Incidence of Social Spending, Subsidies and Taxes Handbook’, CEQ Working Paper no. 1, 13December. New Orleans, LA: Tulane University.
26.
LustigN.Lopez- CalvaL.F.MatytsinM.PopovaD. (2017) ‘Who Benefits from Fiscal Redistribution in Russia?’ in InchausteG.LustigN. (eds) The Distributional Impact of Fiscal Policy: Evidence from Developing Countries, pp. 199–233. Washington, DC: World Bank.
27.
MahlerV.A.JesuitD.K. (2006) ‘Fiscal Redistribution in the Developed Countries: New Insights from the Luxembourg Income Study’, Socio-Economic Review4: 483–511.
28.
MahlerV.A.JesuitD.K. (2010) ‘Comparing Government Redistribution across Countries: The Problem of Second-Order Effects’, Social Science Quarterly91: 1390–404.
29.
ManningN.P.TikhonovaN.E. (2004) Poverty and Social Exclusion in the New Russia. Aldershot: Ashgate.
30.
MilanovicB. (1999) ‘Explaining the Increase in Inequality during Transition’, Economics of Transition7: 299–341.
31.
NottenG.GassmannF. (2008) ‘Size Matters: Targeting Efficiency and Poverty Reduction Effects of Means-Tested and Universal Child Benefits in Russia’, Journal of European Social Policy18: 260–74.
32.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2008) Growing Unequal? Income Distribution and Poverty in OECD Countries. Paris: OECD.
33.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2011) Divided We Stand: Why Inequality Keeps Rising. Paris: OECD.
34.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2015) Education at a Glance 2015 (OECD Indicators). Paris: OECD.
35.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2016) OECD Social Expenditure Database. Paris: OECD.
36.
OvcharovaL.PopovaD. (2005) Child Poverty in Russia: Alarming Trends and Policy Options. Moscow, Russia: UNICEF.
37.
OvcharovaL.PopovaD.PishniakA. (2007) New Measures Supporting Families with Children: Encouragement of the Birthrate or Improvement of the Living Standards? an Analysis of the Maternity and Child Support Measures Introduced in 2007 in the Russian Federation. Moscow, Russia: UNICEF.
38.
PopovaD. (2013) ‘Impact Assessment of Alternative Reforms of Child Allowances Using RUSMOD: The Static Tax-benefit Microsimulation Model for Russia’, International Journal of Microsimulation6: 122–56.
39.
PopovaD. (2016) ‘Distributional Impacts of Cash Allowances for Children: A Microsimulation Analysis for Russia and Europe’, Journal of European Social Policy26: 1–20.
40.
ReynoldsM.SmolenskyE. (1977) Public Expenditures, Taxes, and the Distribution of Income: The United States, 1950, 1961, 1970. New York: Academic Press.
41.
Rosstat (2017) Russia in Figures. Moscow, Russia: Federal State Statistical Service.
42.
TittertonM. (2006) ‘Social Policy in a Cold Climate: Health and Social Welfare in Russia’, Social Policy & Administration40: 88–103.
43.
VolchkovaN.GorshkovaE.LobanovS.JuliaK.KseniY. (2006) ‘Microsimulation Analysis of the Consequences of Monetization of Social Benefits in Russia’, New Economic School Working Paper #WP// 2006/063. Moscow, Russia: New Economic School, available at https://ideas.repec.org/a/ris/apltrx/0151.html
44.
WeigandC.GroshM. (2008) ‘Levels and Patterns of Safely Net Spending in Developing and Transition Countries’, Social Protection Discussion Paper no. 0817. Washington DC: World Bank, available at https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/11739
45.
World Bank (2005) Growth, Poverty and Inequality: Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union. Washington, DC: World Bank.
46.
World Bank (2007) Improving Social Assistance and Employment Assistance Programs to Combat Poverty, Proposal for a Social Protection Strategy: National Report, Advisory and Methodological Assistance to Enhancing Measurement, Monitoring and Analysis of Poverty in Russia. Moscow: Institute for Urban Economics, Independent Institute for Social Policy, Urban Institute, World Bank.
47.
World Bank (2016) Russia Economic Report 35: The Long Journey to Recovery. Moscow, Russia:World Bank.
48.
World Bank (2017a) Russia Economic Report 38: Russia’s Recovery: How Strong Are Its Shoots?Moscow, Russia:World Bank.
49.
World Bank (2017b) World Development Indicators. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
