Suchergebnisse

The paper analyzes the life quality of the rural and urban population of Russia. The purpose of the study is to obtain quantitative estimates of the prox-imity of the main aspects of the life quality in the city and the countryside. The empirical base is the microdata of statistical observations of Rosstat at the end of 2018. The life quality is determined through a combination of financial capabilities and needs of the individual, as well as the state of the external environment. The financial condition of an individual characterizes the possibility of consum-ing a good, which may not be realized due to the absence or non-articulation of the corresponding need. The state of the external environment charac-terizes the physical (technical) availability of goods, their variety and quality. It is shown the availability of benefits to the rural population associated with the quality of housing and the environment that is higher than in the city. A high level of consumption of a number of expensive goods and services (TVs, mobile phones, cars) has been established, which, however, is combined with their lower quality and less variety of choices (brands). It is shown that the limited physical (technical) accessibility of modern innovative goods and services is overcome more difficult and slower, and in the foreseeable future it is impossible to expect a convergence of the life quality in cities and villages in this aspect.

Time budget is an adequate tool for the study of lifestyle, understood through the combination of various types of activities. The welfare loss to the level below the poverty line is characterized by a significant change in life-style and is reflected in the transformation of the structure of the time budget. Married couples without children and singles are less exposed to the risk of poverty than others. The former are characterized by high time spent on self-sufficiency, which is largely motivated by helping children living separately. The latter are characterized by high expenditures of time on organization of everyday life. The rural population aged 25–50 actively uses self-employment as an additional source of income, however, it does not become an alternative to official work. Poverty in this group is characterized by a redistribution of the time budget from work mainly to self-sufficiency practices and, to a lesser extent, household and leisure activities. In this case, poverty is dangerous due to rapid habituation to a lifestyle of semi-subsistence farming. The highest risk of poverty is among fami-lies with many children and single-parent families. The way out of poverty for them is associated with an in-crease in the balance of the time budget, a more complete use of self-employment opportunities.