This text is translated into Russian by google automatic human level neural machine.
EastRussia is not responsible for any mistakes in the translated text. Sorry for the inconvinience.
Please refer to the text in Russian as a source.
The Far East: State ambitions and the real quality of life
The Laboratory of Mathematical Methods of Political Analysis and Forecasting of Moscow State University assessed the quality of life of the population of Russian regions and how it changed from 2006 to 2012 year. Considerable attention was paid to the Far East at the request of EastRussia.ru, a region that the state declared with the mouths of its leaders as a priority in the country's regional development strategy.
In European countries, relatively small in area and more or less homogeneous in climatic, economic, ethnic and social terms, the quality of life index is usually calculated for the entire country. In Russia, one cannot ignore the enormous size of the state and the significant disproportions between its separate parts. Therefore, the calculation is carried out for individual regions using a single methodology, after which a comparison of regional indicators among themselves, as well as the dynamics of development, is investigated.
The quality of life and the standard of living are different concepts, primarily in terms of their "bulk". The standard of living is an indicator reflecting the well-being of the population (income level, the ability to meet the basic needs of citizens in food, housing, medicines, etc.). The quality of life is a much broader concept, which includes not only the material well-being of people, but also the opportunities for access to quality health care, social security, transport, communications and communications, cultural activities, etc.).
Scientists from the Moscow State University in their study assessed the quality of life of the regions of the Russian Federation, achieved by 2012, and how it changed from 2006 year to 2012 year. The conclusions were based exclusively on official data of the Federal Service of State Statistics of the Russian Federation. This allowed us to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of the activities of regional administrations and the political system of Russia as a whole with maximum objectivity. And although citizens' self-perception and expert assessments serve as important indicators for assessing the quality of life, in this case they would somewhat distort the real picture precisely because of their inevitable subjectivity and interrelationship with political campaigns or processes.
The researchers included in the final quality of life index integrated data on five thematic blocks: personal security (the number of murders for 100 thousand people), the housing conditions of citizens (including the proportion of total living space equipped with running water, the proportion of dilapidated and emergency housing stock in the total The area of housing stock, the total area of residential premises, an average per resident); Social sphere (the share of the population with cash incomes below the subsistence minimum, the Gini index, the unemployment rate according to the ILO methodology); Health of the population (infant mortality rate, average life expectancy) and ecology (amount of pollutant emissions per capita). It was also assessed how the quality of life indicator changed over time in different regions. This made it possible to identify in which regions the development model was more or less successful.
Regions with the optimal type of development of the quality of life in Russia (the "5" rating on a five-point scale) revealed only 8, one of them (Nenets Autonomous District) clearly lacked statistical data for building a qualitative model. In the Far East, two best students are the Magadan Region and the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia). In the 62 constituent entities of the Russian Federation, the cases were "four" and there was a slowdown in the pace of development. "Троечники" (they turned out to be 13) slowed down in the last two years and in some cases demonstrated instability of development - from temporary successes to recessions and back. However, the decline in the quality of life was not catastrophic. Fortunately, there were no "doubles" among the Russian regions in recent years.
The Amur region, the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), the Jewish Autonomous Region and the Chukotka Autonomous Region are among the outsiders on both the Far Eastern and the All-Russian backgrounds. In 2012, they are ranked from 77 to 81 and are among the most problematic regions in the country. This is clearly seen when comparing specific indices of quality of life (see table).
| Level of
| Level of
| Evaluation of dynamics
|The Republic of Sakha (Yakutia)||0,71||0,70||77||78||5|
|Jewish Autonomous Region||0,66||0,67||79||79||4|
|Chukotka Autonomous Okrug||0,74||0,62||74||81||4 (Unsustainable Development)|
At the same time, the indices of the development dynamics of the Far Eastern territories are encouraging. In terms of its development, the region is ahead of Russia as a whole - in this sense, federal resources and programs still seem to "work" (see figure).
· The development of a part of the territories is very unstable, and these are the most problematic regions, such as Chukotka and the Jewish Autonomous Region.
• Stagnation processes began in Yakutia and the Amur Region, which are still quite far from the average Russian level. There are no guarantees that in the near future they will be able to maintain a good dynamic of development.
· Negative trends also appear in the "group of leaders", and the Kamchatka Krai is especially worried. On the one hand, stagnation was clearly indicated, on the other - a sharp dip in the crisis year 2009 indicates a systemic instability of the development model.
|Security||Housing and utilities|| Social
|The Republic of Sakha (Yakutia)||75||80||71||67||62|
|Jewish Autonomous Region||77||74||58||80||59|
|Chukotka Autonomous Okrug||78||5||32||82||75|
All these factors, the authors conclude, show that today the Far East has not made the "jerk" that is expected of it, and remains on the Russian background "periphery" and "province." Inside this district, the differences between the leading regions and outsiders are clearly visible. However, those who are now showing relatively favorable results are at any moment at risk of recoiling: development is extremely unstable, it is quite possible to increase stagnation processes, which will inevitably worsen the overall quality of life of citizens.
Leaders and outsiders on the quality of life in 2012
|Rank 2012|| Quality
|St. Petersburg||1,00||1||Nenets Autonomous Area||0,75||73|
|Kaliningrad region||0,96||2||Rep. Dagestan||0,75||74|
|The Republic of Tatarstan||0,95||3||Rep. Altai||0,74||75|
|Belgorod region||0,95||4||Trans-Baikal Territory||0,72||76|
|Murmansk region||0,94||5||Amur Region||0,71||77|
|Moscow||0,94||6||Rep. Sakha (Yakutia)||0,70||78|
|Moscow region||0,94||7||Jewish Autonomous Region||0,67||79|
|Voronezh region||0,93||8||Rep. Ingushetia||0,62||80|
|Rep. North Ossetia Alania||0,93||10||Rep. Tyva||0,37||82|