Trends of changing public welfare in subjects of the Russian Federation
Abstract
Improving the social welfare of the population is the main problem of economic development. The complexity of the subject of study is due to two factors. First, the self-determination of public welfare is debatable. Along with this, there are related concepts that are often perceived as synonymous: the level, quality of life and social welfare. However, more precise definitions are proposed. In the future, the standard of living will be used as a category that takes into account only minor aspects. The quality of life is considered as a social, economic and environmental sphere. In the framework of this work, welfare is understood as a complex category that evaluates the effectiveness of all aspects of human life, achieved with the welfare of the population. At the same time, with a large number of scientific publications on the problem of public consumption, the question of measuring private income is in additional analysis. With the help of the “Physical Quality Index”, changes in social welfare in the regions of the Russian Federation were analyzed. In general, for all federal regions in the period 2010–2020, there is an increase in life expectancy and infant mortality. As a result of the study, it was found that in the selected period, the boundaries between the boundaries of the sphere of life in all spheres of the Russian Federation.
About the Author
Y. L. Odintsova
Kazan (Volga region) Federal University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Senior Lecturer
References
1. Veliulaeva S.S. Statistical assessment of the standard of living of the population of the Russian Federation // Bulletin of modern research. – 2018. – No. 6.4(21). – P. 102–104.
2. Kitieva M.I., Kodzoeva Z.U., Research on the quality and standard of living of the population in the region // Colloquium-Journal. – 2018. – No. 10-5 (21). – P. 56–58.
3. Sadyraliev Zh.S. Comparison of the concepts of the level and quality of life: subjective content // Society and Security Insights. – 2021. – Vol. 4. – No. 1. – P. 58–66.
4. World Health Organization. The constitution of the World Health Organization. – WHO Chron, 1947. – 186 p.
5. Kaplan R.M, Bush J.W. Health-related quality of life measurement for evaluation research and policy analysis // Health Psychol. – 1982. – 1. – P. 61–80.
6. Tonon G.H. Teaching Quality of Life in Different Domains. Social Indicators Research Series // Social Indicators Research Series, 1387–6570, 79. – 2020. – 300 p.
7. Smith D.M. The geography of social well-being in the United States: An introduction to territorial social indicators / New York: McGraw-Hill. – 1973. – 144 p.
8. Campbell A., Converse P.E., Rodgers W.L. The quality of American life: Perceptions, evaluations, and satisfactions // New York: Russell Sage Foundation. – 1976. – 583 p.
9. Bauer R. A. Social indicators // Cambridge: The M.I.T. Press. – 1966. – 380 p.
10. U.S. Department of health, education and welfare (HEW) / Toward a Social Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. – 1969. – 118 p.
11. Sheldon E.B., Parke R., Aborn M. Recollections and Views of Key Figures in the Social Indicators Program // Items 37(4). – 1983. – P. 78–89.
12. Campbell A., Converse P.E. The Human Meaning of Social Change // New York: Russell Sage Foundation. – 1972. – 557 p.
13. Rosario E.V.N., Severo M., Francisco D. Examining the relation between the subjective and objective social status with health reported needs and health-seeking behaviour in Dande, Angola // BMC Public Health – 2021. – 21, 979. – 16 p.
14. Zang E., Bardo A.R. Objective and Subjective Socioeconomic Status, Their Discrepancy, and Health: Evidence from East Asia // Soc. Indic. Res. – 2019. – 143(2). – P. 765–794.
15. Kubiszewski I., Zakariyya N., Costanza R. Objective and subjective indicators of life satisfaction in Australia: How well do people perceive what supports a good life? // Ecological Economics. – 2018. – 154. – P. 361–372.
16. Macku K., Caha J., Paszto V., Tucek P. Subjective or Objective? How Objective Measures relate to subjective Life Satisfaction in Europe // International Journal of Geo-Information. – 2020. – 9, 320. – 23 p.
17. Cohen Kaminitz S. Looking Good or Feeling Well? Understanding the Combinations of Well-Being Indicators Using Insights from the Philosophy of Well-Being / Soc. Indic. Res. 150. – 2020. – P. 1–16.
18. Voukelatou V., Gabrielli L., Miliou I., Cresci S., Sharma R., Tesconi M., Pappalardo L. Measuring objective and subjective well-being: dimensions and data sources // Int. J. Data Sci. Anal. – 2020. – 11. – P. 279–309.
19. Pappalardo L., Simini F. Data-driven generation of spatio-temporal routines in human mobility // Data Min. Knowl. Disc. – 2018. – 32(3). – P. 787–829.
20. Steele J.E., Sundsoy P.R., Pezzulo C., Alegana V.A., Bird T.J., Blumenstock J., Bjelland J., Engo-Monsen K., de Montjoye Y.A., Iqbal A.M. Mapping poverty using mobile phone and satellite data // J. R. Soc. Interface. – 14(127). – 2017. – 10 p.
Review
For citations:
Odintsova Y.L. Trends of changing public welfare in subjects of the Russian Federation. Kazan economic vestnik. 2022;(4):26-33. (In Russ.)
Views:
5
Email this article 