• Home
  • Issues
  • 2016
  • No 3
  • Evaluation of the social well-being of Russian regions, the level and dynamics of inter-regional disparities based on a welfare functions

Evaluation of the social well-being of Russian regions, the level and dynamics of inter-regional disparities based on a welfare functions

TERRA ECONOMICUS, , Vol. 14 (no. 3),

Subject of the study. This article analyzes the alternative approaches to construction of social welfare functions, and use them for evaluationof the inter-regional disparities in the Russian Federation, as well as the convergence/divergence of the Russian regions in social well-being in 2004–2014. Methodology. We analyze the generalizing welfare functions and problems of their construction.As a basis of researchwe selected «the abbreviated social welfare functions»by A. Sen and B. Atkinson, representing an adjustment of real income per capita to indicator of intraregional inequalities. We proposed the extension of these functions by including four additional elements of well-being: the indices of leisure, life expectancy, housing and real net savings. For evaluation of the regional inequality in the level of welfare we employed the coefficients of Giniand variation, the Hachman and Theil indices, all of themweighted by population. Results of the research. We have obtained estimations of the social well-being of Russian regions for 11 years based on simple and advanced functions by Sen and Atkinson.We established the dynamics of the regions’ relative welfare and their ranks shift as well as the contributions of thefactors in the regions’ well-being.We have identified a logit-shaped type of inter-regional differences in the level of welfare per capita: the coexistence of excessive poverty and excessive richnesswith the stable middle. On the basis of estimations of inter-regional inequality in the level of social welfare we concluded that the convergence trend was interrupted in 2012 and has turned to divergence. Our study also revealed that the degree of inter-regional inequality and its rate for the welfare functions is lower than for the real income per capita. Application of results. The results and conclusions may serve to further specification of welfare functions and theiruse for evaluation of regions’ well-being, inter-regional differences in welfare and trends of development

Keywords: social well-being; welfare function; region; uneven; convergence; divergence

  • Balatsky E.V. and Saakyants M.V. (2006). The divergence of incomes and economic growth / Institute of Economic Forecasting of the Russian Academy of Sciences: scientific papers. M.: Institute of Economic Forecasting of the Russian Academy of Sciences, vol. 4, pp. 583–601. (In Russian.)
  • Korobitsyn B.A. (2015). Methodological Approaches for Estimating Gross Regional Product after Taking into Account Depletion of Natural Resources, Environmental Pollution and Human Capital Aspects. Ekonomikaregiona (Economy of Region), vol. 3, pp. 77–88. (In Russian.)
  • Malkina M.Yu. (2014). Study of the relationship between the development level and degree of income inequality in the Russian regions. Ekonomika regiona (Economy of Region), vol. 2(38), pp. 238–248. (In Russian.)
  • Malkina M.Yu. (2016). On the Issue of Weighting in Interregional Studies (in Response to K.P. Gluschenko). Spatial Economics, vol. 1, pp. 163–184. (In Russian.)
  • Pyzhev A.I. and Pyzheva Y.I. (2015). Evaluation of regional ecological and socio-economic well-being of the Krasnoyarsk Krai: a new approach. Regional economics: theory and practice, vol. 34 (409), pp. 30–40. (In Russian).
  • Andrade G.A. and Garcia J.R. (2015). Estimating the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) for Brazil from 1970 to 2010 // Ecological Economics, vol. 118, pp. 49–56.
  • Atkinson A.B. (1970). On the measurement of inequality // Journal of Economic Theory, vol. 2(3), pp. 244–263.
  • Ayala L., Jurado A. and Pedraja F. (2010). Inequality and Welfare in Intra-Territorial Income Distribution / In: Regional Policy, Economic Growth and Convergence. Chapter 11. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 233–260.
  • Bleys B. (2013). The Regional Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare for Flanders, Belgium // Sustainability, vol. 5, pp. 496–523.
  • Carlsson F., Daruvala D. and Johansson-Stenman O. (2005). Are people inequalityaverse, orjust risk-averse? // Economica, vol. 72, pp. 375–396.
  • Chelli F.M., Ciommi M. and Gigliarano C. (2013). The Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare: A Comparison of Two Italian Regions // Procedia– Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1st World Congress of Administrative & Political Sciences (ADPOL–2012), vol. 81, pp. 443–448.
  • Dagum C. (1990). On the relationship between income inequality measures and social welfare functions // Journal of Econometrics, vol. 43, pp. 91–102.
  • Daly H. and Cobb J. (1989). For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy toward Community, the Environment and a Sustainable Future. Beacon Press: Boston, MA, USA.
  • Grüen C. and Klasen S. (2008). Growth, Inequality, and Welfare: Comparisons across Space and Time // Oxford Economic Papers, New Series, vol. 60, no. 2 (Apr.), pp. 212–236.
  • Howarth R.B. and Kennedy K. (2016). Economic growth, inequality, and well-being // Ecological Economics, vol. 121, pp. 231–236.
  • Johansson-Stenman O., Carlsson F. and Daruvala D. (2002). Measuring future grandparents’preferences for equality and relative standing // Economic Journal, vol. 112, pp. 362–383.
  • Jones C.I. and Klenow P.J. (2015). Beyond GDP? Welfare across Countries and Time // NBER Working Paper No. 16352, September 2010, Revised April 2015 (http://www.nber.org/papers/w16352.pdf).
  • Jordá V., Trueba C. and Sarabia J.M. (2013). Assessing global inequality in well-being using generalized entropy measures // Procedia Economics and Finance, International Conference On Applied Economics (ICOAE) 2013, vol. 5, pp. 361–367.
  • Kakwani N. (1981). Welfare measures: An international comparisons // Journal of Development Economics, vol. 8, pp. 21–45.
  • Lambert R.J. (1993). The Distribution and Redistribution of Income. Manchester University Press, Manchester: UK.
  • Lawn P.A. (2003). A theoretical foundation to support the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW), Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI), and other related indexes // Ecological Economics, vol. 44, pp. 105–118.
  • Posner S.M. and Costanza R. (2011). A summary of ISEW and GPI studies at multiple scales and new estimates for Baltimore City, Baltimore County, and the State of Maryland // Ecological Economics, vol. 70, no. 11, pp. 1972–1980.
  • Sen A. (1976). Real national income // Review of Economic Studies, vol. 43, pp. 19–39.
Publisher: Southern Federal University
Founder: Southern Federal University
ISSN: 2073-6606