When the planned economy gave way to a market economy, the level and quality of social welfare plummeted. Numerous and various factors contributed to this process: enterprises were closed with the mass disappearance of jobs, several monetary reforms, including devaluation, and absolutely predatory privatization were carried out, plus the people lost at least three times all their savings due to the state financial policy.
As explained to the people
All the most popular media spoke and speak with one voice (exceptions are now so rare and so small that it is hardly possible to take their warnings seriously): "In the context of the transition to market regulation of the economy, all state economic activity was aimed at achieving a single goal - raise the standard of public welfare, and this process has not only begun, but at the moment it is possible to draw some conclusions.Population now, after thirty years, in principle, can fully satisfy everything with "basic needs that are constantly growing quantitatively and qualitatively changing for the better."
Almost never takes into account such a relationship as the needs of the individual and society as a whole. It seems that the country achieved public welfare only in reports. None of the accomplished reforms has benefited the bulk of the population. We can talk for a long time about the exorbitant demands of the housing and communal services, about the collapse of medicine and a drop in the level of education.
Pension reform is a huge blow to absolutely all segments of the population, except, of course, the notorious "two percent", which is doing well. They are also trying to present this in the media as necessary steps to raising public welfare. However, now it is hardly possible to deceive anyone.
About social security
The policy of "public welfare" has defined its functions for a long time and is not going to change them. What is presented as an improved quality of life is not at all such a thing. Here was a Soviet person’s right to housing, guaranteed by the Constitution. Now there is much more housing built than was built in the USSR. We are not talking about its quality for now.
However, those who ventured to relocate to the new multi-storey “humane people” fell into such a financial bondage that not only their children, but also their grandchildren, would feel. Exhausting mortgages, predatory interest on bank loans - these are the functions of today's housing policy. Public welfare in this area could not be achieved. However, there is no such area that would be, from this point of view, prosperous.
A bit of science
The standard of living (and this is the level of social welfare) is the degree to which people are provided with goods - spiritual and material, as well as the necessary living conditions for a safe and comfortable existence. It is necessary to evaluate the standard of living qualitatively and quantitatively, moreover, it is not only these or those indicated benefits of the spiritual and material order that are determined.
A footnote is always made at the existing level of development of social needs, which depend on a given social culture and specific historical conditions. In this way, one can easily underestimate or overestimate the bar reached by public welfare, and the effectiveness of the state’s information policy will pay off many times.
People and numbers
It is impossible to do without determining the standard of living without indicating the volume of GDP production, as well as national income, which are calculated per capita. Social welfare in the economy is calculated in this way. But per capita, ND and GDP are only calculated, in fact, both the benefits and the state are moving back to the notorious "two percent" of the population, who rule the property, which should belong to the people. Including subsoil and all mineral resources in them.
The people would process the raw materials themselves. Businesses in the public domain are not profitable. Therefore, the growth of social welfare is observed only in dictated figures, and the national economy does not rise from its knees, and the country's position in the world market is becoming more and more difficult day by day.
About theorists
The American scientist A. Maslow drew a well-known pyramid of needs for everyone, where you can trace the consumer hierarchy. This is one of the most prominent theoreticians of public welfare, and the effectiveness of his work, adopted by some countries, is visible firsthand.
For any person, initially there are no conditions for the development of needs, they just need to be created, it is then that everyone can develop, using all the opportunities to meet their needs. Moreover, the scientist advises starting with the most necessary, that is, primitive (according to Maslow), because with the unfulfillment of the lower and higher needs, it will not be possible to satisfy.
Theories of public welfare continued to build F. Herzberg. His two-factor model, demonstrating needs, is also widely known beyond the scientific community. It relies on factors such as motivation and support.
Further, the third level was added to this model by the scientist K. Alderfer. Here, the model’s work already goes through the stages of existence, relationships and growth. In fact, to classify literally all human needs is unusually difficult, too many derivatives. According to the Swiss scientist K. Levin, these are quasi-needs.
Social policy of the state
However, the welfare state was never created. Sweden could be cited as an example with its democratic socialism and detailed redistribution of goods, but there are also many problems, and the initial conditions for its growth were fundamentally different from those in which other countries were located.
Since 1914, Sweden has been neutral, and therefore it was not affected by either the First or Second World Wars. The rise of the Swedish economy began in the post-war ruins of the rest of Europe, where it was possible to trade very successfully with the presence and integrity of the Swedish people and industries. It is impossible to compare not only Sweden, not one of the more or less developed countries in terms of public welfare with Russia. There is no fulfillment of needs here — not even basic ones.
Income distribution scientists
Losses of public welfare are most often associated with issues of justice in the distribution of income. Let us recall the recent increase in VAT, which will kill the entire existing processing industry in the bud, and also ask why those who receive the minimum wage of 7,000 rubles, and our multimillionaires from the notorious "two percent" pay the same fee - 13% of income tax . Such problems were thoroughly studied under A. Smith, who advocated not for justice, but for the effectiveness of the economy, which will bring prosperity. "Our All" A. Pushkin was read by his theories, but he did not release the peasants.
J. Bentham talked about the criteria of social welfare, consisting in the ideas of the equal distribution of goods, and for a long time this point of view prevailed. At the beginning of the twentieth century, the specifics of this theory began to gradually strengthen. For example, V. Pareto said the following about the optimal level: you cannot harm the well-being of another individual by improving your own. Bentham explained the utilitarian function of public welfare as follows: the process of production of services and goods, their distribution and exchange should not worsen the welfare of any of the subjects of the economy. That is, the enrichment of some due to the impoverishment of others is unacceptable. A hundred years have passed since the proclamation of this dogma, which our contemporaries now accuse of limitation and excessive generalization.
For example, an economist from Italy, E. Barone, considered the injustice in the distribution of wealth to be effective, because despite the fact that some people benefit and others suffer damage, the increase in social status as a whole will take place. And if the winner also shares (compensates for the damage to the loser), literally everything will remain in the gain. And this formula has now become one of the most powerful points of support for the state system. But not in Russia. The economic inequality that arises in the production process, society must neutralize, redistributing material goods and services, without losing the stimulating effect of such social protection: without demotivation of labor and refusal of efforts to improve their own well-being.
GDP indicators in the USSR and the Russian Federation
The USSR occupied the second place in the world in the production of GDP; in certain types of production, it confidently held the first place. The baton was accepted by the Russian Federation. And back in 1992, she did not go far from the G-7, having a GDP production indicator worthy of eighth place in the world, remaining among the developed countries. There are standards at the UN that define this separation. If per capita GDP is less than five thousand dollars, the country is rolled back to the category of developing countries.
At present, in all respects, Russia is losing, in most cases the indicators are two and even two and a half times lower. However, nobody in our country calls it developing. Yes, huge economic potential. But it is in no way realized. Some media even say that Russia has emerged from a state of crisis, while others claim a rapid exit process. However, public welfare is getting worse and worse.
The economy of the USSR in no indicator can be compared with the current state of the country. It is better to continue comparing Russia and the United States. For example, the generally accepted indicator of social welfare is the ratio of the production of material goods and the service sector. The higher the volume of the service sector rises in terms of GDP, the higher is welfare. In the 1990s, the service sector in Russia occupied 16% of the population, in the USA - 42%. In 2017, in Russia - 22%, and in the USA - 51%. There will be the same proportions if we consider specifically hospital beds per thousand people or the number of doctors per ten thousand. In this we always lose.
International indicators
The living standards of the country's inhabitants are determined by even more significant and specific international indicators:
1. By main products: per capita consumption, and then the same again - for one family.
2. The structure of consumption is considered: the quantitative ratio of consumed milk, meat, bread, butter, vegetable fats, potatoes, fish, fruits, vegetables, and the like. This determines the quality of consumption, and this is a fundamental indicator of the well-being of society. For example, one hundred kilograms of meat per year per person and the same one hundred, but in the proportion "half - meat, the other half - sausages." The second option is significantly higher in terms of quality of consumption.
3. The welfare reference point adopted in all countries is the consumer basket. This is a whole set of services and material goods, thanks to which one or another level of consumption is provided (in a given country and at a given historical moment). For example, a consumer basket of a resident of Russia contains only 25 items, and a resident of the United States - significantly more than 50 items. Even more important is how much this whole set costs, since the entire consumption structure favorable to the natural and climatic conditions must be ensured. Our 25 products in the consumer basket have never met these requirements, they do not and now - even worse than before. It is even more terrifying that even the meager value of the consumer basket is beyond the means of more than 60% of Russia's population.
4. Living wage (otherwise - the minimum level of consumption) - an indicator that determines the poverty line. When moving beyond the specified level, a person is no longer poor - he is poor. He would need state assistance, but the levers of social policy are stalled, and therefore more than a third of the country's population are on the verge of physical survival purely biologically. From a socio-economic point of view, even the reproduction of the country's population is at risk. Which, in principle, we are observing today. Here you can justify the success of the migration policy, which does not allow to see in figures this "hole" between the increase and decrease in population. But not necessary. "Hole" in place, did not disappear.
State and society
There should be a consensus between the state and society regarding the necessary material support for the poorest citizens of the country. It is necessary to create new and better regulate existing systems of material and cash benefits in order to at least slightly improve the well-being of vulnerable groups such as the unemployed, the disabled, families with children, orphans and the like.
But the state looks at this problem quite differently. An example is given of a situation where financial assistance undermines the usefulness of the income of a subsidized citizen, especially if he is able-bodied but not employed (let us recall the unemployment that appeared due to the enterprises closed forever). It is believed that, receiving a benefit, a citizen will no longer want to work.
Then the social product decreases and then the welfare of society. But if he doesn’t pay at all, he will either fit into the market — an auxiliary worker or a courier for a minimum wage, so as not to die of starvation, or he will die of hunger. No man - no problem. Migration policy, again, works successfully. But the market mechanism is not so perfect, and in principle, it does not care about the well-being of all participants without exception.
Moreover, the state is inclined to reproach even large families in the fact that the mother of numerous children lives only on children's allowances. And this is 3142 rubles and 33 kopecks for one child up to one and a half years old and 6284 rubles and 65 kopecks, if there are two of them. Indeed, the mother will not deny herself anything and will not want to go to work, even if she can. The state can make such claims to its citizens only if unemployment is eliminated. And in the present state of affairs, it is necessary to think over the incentive options and begin to save their own people.