SOCIAL POLICIES IN RUSSIA №5(40) December 1999

A number of acute social problems had appeared in Russia by the end of 1995, on the threshold of the elections to the State Duma of the second convocation (1995-1999). They developed as part of the constant trends that had evolved in the social sphere by that time. Firstly, we witnessed faster growth rates in the prices of essential goods, above all foodstuffs, although monthly rates have slowed down cyclically, as have the costs of compulsory paid services and the services available to mass consumers. Secondly, a deterioration (despite their temporal stabilisation) of the main parameters of peoples’ living standards, such as real incomes (a steady growth in wage arrears remained, leading to the depreciation of actual earnings), the consumption of foodstuffs and the poverty level. Thirdly, polarisation of the society in terms of their material welfare. Fourthly, active use of informal employment, which significantly distorted the situation on the labour market. Fifthly, legalisation of the shadow economy and increasing growth rates of criminalisation in society. The state virtually abandoned the social sphere, forcing the population to fend for themselves.

All the political forces in the electoral campaign, from liberal democrats to left-wing radicals, admitted that the social policies conducted in the country constituted the weak point of the Government and that serious transformations were required above all in the social sphere. Consequently, on the threshold of parliamentary elections all the parties, movements and blocs aspiring to achieve a convincing victory, demonstrated increased interest in social problems. They stated in their programmes the tasks that would, if resolved, facilitate the maintenance of dialogue with a significant part of the electorate and thereby ensure their passage through the State Duma. At the same time, however convincing their arguments sounded to back their positions and however convincing their planned social policies, in reality most of them (especially from the left-wing parties) were imbued with sheer populism and were merely declarative. All the parties and movements formulated their main social priorities. Finally virtually all the parties demonstrated typical lists of promises to resolve the most acute social problems: to raise minimum wages to the real subsistence minimum level; redeem lost savings and preserve the current deposits and savings of the population; restore social guarantees for health care and education; provide jobs and housing and prevent the growth in crime. Analysis of the social chapters of the electoral programmes of different parties and blocs demonstrated the development of two approaches to social policies. The first traditionally continued to propagate social dependence; whereas the democratically-oriented blocs offered social partnership and a policy of social initiatives.

According to the results of the elections only four out of the initially enrolled 43 electoral blocs gained access to the State Duma of the second convocation as of the federal lists in December 1995:

Ю the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF), leader Gennady Zyuganov, assuming the left part of the political spectrum and representing patriotically-minded neo-communists and in strong opposition to the authorities;

Ю the All-Russian public political movement «Our Home is Russia» (OHR), leader Viktor Chernomyrdin, at the time the pro-presidential «party of power», assuming a centre-right position in the political spectrum and uniting the moderate conservatives;

Ю the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR), leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky, uniting radical state patriots, occupying the extreme right part of the political spectrum, who constituted, according to their leader, the irreconcilable opposition;

Ю the All-Russian public association Yabloko, leader Grigory Yavlinsky. The association united the liberal democrats representing the right part of the political spectrum. The association represented a moderate constructive democratic opposition to the ruling authorities.

Together with the deputies elected in single-mandate electoral districts, they constituted the main political spectrum of the deputy corps, forming four parliamentary factions and three deputy groups (see Figure 1 ). There was a decisive factor in the division of forces in the Duma - as the CPRF had been most successful in the elections, it constituted the largest faction of the new Duma. Together with deputies from the deputy groups «Power for the People» and the Agrarians (both groups represented the communist ideology), the communists could count on about 210-220 votes, which virtually always guaranteed them a strategic advantage. In other words, the majority of the State Duma of the second convocation belonged to the left-wing opposition.

The representatives of the left-wing opposition had always advocated the policies of social dependency. The communists believed that if they came to power, they would achieve their main goal - the welfare of ordinary citizens. For example, in particular they promised to reduce payments for housing and communal services to 5% of incomes or stabilise it at 3% of the average wage. They also promised a reduction in consumer prices and their subsequent state regulation. They planned to transfer the tax burden to the incomes of individuals and also ensure sufficient financing for such budget-financed sectors as education, science and culture. Here they regarded the state treasury as the single and main source of financing for the social sector. This dependency-based approach was also announced by the agrarians: reform and development of the agrarian-industrial complex only through powerful state support and the resolution of the social problems of the rural population solely through budget financing.

Virtually only two democratic forces in the lower chamber of parliament - the OHR and Yabloko factions, formed from the associations of the same names, according to the Regulations - were the main opponents of the left-wing majority in the Duma. Only one factor united these political structures - they were both democratic in orientation and advocates of social initiatives. In other words they sought to build state social policies on the basis of voluntary cooperation of the citizen and the state, and as part of this policy persuade the people to participate actively in improving their welfare.

In particular, the OHR, the second faction in terms of number of seats in the State Duma, strongly advocated during the electoral campaign the idea of the «social state» and a «socially-oriented economy». Its main promises on the threshold of the elections included the following: implement preventive measures to curb mass unemployment; facilitate income growth not only from labour activity as hired workers, but also from entrepreneurial activity and property; ensure reliable social protection for all state dependents, raising the minimum payments to the subsistence minimum level; raise state expenditure on budget workers (health care, education, science and culture); create a multimillion class of rural worker-owners.

The Yabloko faction considered as its main social goal the provision of economic and legal guarantees for the social security of the population, as well as social accord in society. Yabloko considered that this goal was dependent above all on elevating the status of worker. This would involve well-co-ordinated reforms on the labour market and for monetary incomes. The main social priorities in the labour sphere were set as follows: re-orientation of employment policy to more active forms, a broadening of the labour market through new legalised spheres of labour, orientation of tax legislation to promote job creation. The state priorities in the income sector can be summed up as follows: legal protection of workers against the insolvency of employers, a phased increase in the minimum wage to the subsistence minimum level, a narrowing in the gap between the wages in the production and budget spheres though the legal adoption of the first rate qualification of the Unified Tariff Net (UTN) and its raise to 1.5 times the minimum wage, maintenance of real wages through timely indexation, an expansion of the tax base and consolidation of tax discipline by reducing taxes in general. Yabloko deputies are firmly convinced that a consistent implementation of these priority measures would have made it possible to broaden the financial opportunities to provide social guarantees for both the employed and the disabled.

The priority task in social provisions for the elderly was to revive - on the basis of uniform pension legislation - the real dependence of the earned pension on an individual’s labour contribution. It was proposed that the social pension should be established at 60% of a pensioner’s subsistence minimum at the first stage and subsequently increase to the subsistence minimum. A social policy, based on the principles of social initiative, stipulated the main principles that needed to be addressed to resolve social problems - the state must be responsible for rendering basic social guarantees to the socially vulnerable and poorest social strata and groups.

A phased reform of the labour market and incomes should be based on professionally developed labour legislation and be backed by real budget financing. Consequently Yabloko considered it necessary to at least revise the Labour Code and adopt a realistic federal budget.

The professional performance of the deputies in the lower chamber of parliament was carried out through committees (see Figure 2 on page 6) organised by decision of the deputies. The posts of Duma committees heads were distributed in accordance with quotas based on the number of seats of factions and deputy groups. Such a distribution led to a situation where most of the Duma committees (ten out of 28) were headed by representatives of the CPRF faction. It should be noted here that the wishes of the factions were considered first when committees were distributed. Consequently, after political consultations with the leaders of the Duma factions, eight social committees were formed, including the Committee for Labour and Social Policies, the Committee for Veterans, the Committee for Women, Family and the Youth, the Committee for Health Care, the Committee for Education and Science, the Committee for Culture, the Committee for Tourism and Sports and the Committee for the Environment. The main committee here was the Committee for Labour and Social Policies: these committees were distributed between the factions and deputy groups in the following manner:

It is quite symbolic that the communists did not take up the main social committee - the Committee for Labour and Social Policies, which forms the social base - it remained with Zhirinovsky’s faction. Nevertheless, the very fact that the communists had most of the votes in the Duma led people to hope that the communist Duma would make a significant contribution to the protection of the social and labour rights of the citizens and would be able to stabilise the social situation in the country.

Proceeding from the political spectrum of the State Duma of its 1995-1999 convocation and the programme goals of its communist majority, it was only natural to expect that social issues would be a priority area for the country’s main legislative body. It was logical to assume that energetic legislative activity in the social sector over four years would inevitably influence the living standards of Russian citizens. Let us see what really happened.

Analysis of the dynamics of the main social and labour indices leads us to conclude that the situation in this area deteriorated over the past four years.

Most state social guarantees are linked to the minimum wage, which was last reviewed in January 1997 and totals less than 84 roubles. In October this year it amounted to barely 8% of the subsistence wage of the able-bodied population, which represents a major decline from 16% in December 1995 (see Figure 3). As a result, state assistance to families with children ranged from 58 to 167 roubles a month (6-18% of children’s subsistence wage), while students of state universities received grants of 167 roubles and post-graduate students got 250 roubles. Students preparing their doctorates were entitled to 500 roubles.1

The average wage in the public sector directly depends on another official norm: the 1st category tariff rate of the Joint Tariff Scale, which amounted to 60 roubles in September 1995 through March 1999. It was raised to 110 roubles on April 1 this year (11% of the subsistence wage as of October 1999). In fact, the 1st category tariff rate was 20 roubles higher in September 1995 through April 1997, and 30 roubles higher in May 1997 through April 1999, owing to additional payments stipulated in government resolutions. There was a side effect to this solution, which constitutes another example of the policy of hand-me-downs conducted by the government instead of an income policy: a reduction in the already unjustifiably narrow tariff scale. The current maximum tariff rate is only 8.23 times higher than the minimum tariff rate.

According to the National Centre of Living Standards, only about 1% of the gainfully employed receive their wages by the 1st category tariff rate, while about 58% have to survive on wages that are below the subsistence wage.

The situation for pensioners looks considerably better against this background, as the minimum pension (234 roubles, together with compensation) amounted to 36% of the subsistence wage for this category of the population in October 1999, although it has not been reviewed for two years. On the other hand, this is less than in December 1995, when it amounted to roughly half the subsistence wage. In addition, there is a smaller difference between pensions than wages. The average pension is only twice the minimum pension, while the average wage is 21 times larger than the minimum wage. In other words, the situation of pensioners who receive a pension that is bigger than the minimum level is roughly comparable to the lowest wage earners. In actual fact even the average pension has lagged behind the subsistence wage of pensioners since October 1998. It covered only 70% of minimum expenses of this group of the population in October 1999. The indexation of pensions in May 1999, when they were raised by 12%, did not resolve the problem, not to mention the April one-off payment of 60 roubles granted to pensioners by presidential decree in April.

Despite electoral promises, the gap between the basic minimum incomes of the population and the subsistence wage has grown over the past four years. Shortly before this year’s elections, the departing State Duma approved a law on raising the minimum wage to 200 roubles. But it is unlikely to be implemented, as the 2000 budget, approved by the self-same deputies, does not stipulate any additional allocations.

Wage arrears are a specific financial instrument used by the authorities. Excessive promises, on the one hand, and the lack of any strict financial discipline, on the other hand, allow different budgets (which account for 25% of overall debts) and enterprises (75% of debts) to resolve their financial problems at the people’s expense. And there are still no effective methods for protecting the people from such forceful «loan-taking». The additions made by the Duma to the Criminal Code (Article 1451) merely stipulate the instruments to be used to combat wage arrears caused by enterprise directors, and only in cases where his or her mercenary or personal interest can be proved. Attempts to introduce fines for each day of wage arrears were already ruled out at the discussion stage of the law in the Federation Council.

To be fair, it should be noted that the rate of growth in wage arrears has slackened over the past few years. Its core – wage arrears – nearly quadrupled in 1996, grew by 55% and 28% in the subsequent two years, respectively, and is expected to fall this year. It declined by roughly 17% in January-October 1999. But the scale of these arrears is still very large, with 1999 wage arrears amounting to about one-third of calculated monthly incomes (see Figure 4 on page 11). On the whole, people have not received at least 40 billion roubles for this reason in 1996-99. Coupled with state debts to pensioners and families with children (25 billion roubles as of March 1, 1999, and 26 billion roubles as of February 1, 1999, respectively) – an area where we don’t receive information regularly - the gap between calculated amounts and actual payments is even greater. According to the analytical department of the State Duma, 86% of all pensioners suffer pension arrears, with an average deferment time of nearly two months.

The material stratification of Russian society continues. The temporary lull in 1995-97, when the incomes of the richest 10% were 13 times higher than the incomes of the poorest 10% of the population, was broken in late 1998. The August 1998 crisis increased the gap to 16 times. The situation levelled off slightly this year, but the income gap between the richest and poorest still fluctuates somewhere around 15.

Many specialists note that, whereas black market earnings glossed over material differences in society in the past, today they only increase the difference. As the overall volume of disposable monetary resources is diminishing, the bulk of the population has been isolated from unregistered sources of income. For example, payments from a «second» balance sheet plummeted – or disappeared - in most organisations, together with the profitability of illegal retail trade. The black market business today is controlled by a small group of the population, which is at the same time the richest, accumulating from one-third to a half of the legal incomes of the population.

Meanwhile, the number of extremely poor individuals is also growing. According to official data, the level of poverty in Russia reached a record high in the first quarter of 1999 for the preceding four years of the 6th Duma and the entire reform period: over 55 million (37.7% of the population) live below the poverty line. Subsequently the figure diminished slightly. However, this year may still set an infamous record in this sphere (see Figure 5 on page 12). According to alternative calculations, this figure is even higher. In particular, according to the National Centre of Living Standards, the share of the poor in this country amounted to about 58% in January-September this year.

According to budgetary research, stratification differences are considerable depending on the place of residence. For example, the disposable resources of rural families were 31% lower than those of urban families in 1998. Rural residents spent relatively more on foods (especially bread, sugar and vegetable oil) and relatively less on services, while spending on non-foods were equal for both groups. As a result, the poverty level of rural residents reached 55% in 1998, and at least 27% survived on incomes that amounted to no more than half the subsistence wage. The figures for urban residents are 35% and 11%, respectively.

Differences in the availability of social assistance constitute one of the factors increasing the material gap between rural and urban residents. Only 21% of rural households comprised recipients of social benefits, while more than 36% of urban families received such assistance in 1998. In addition, the average size of subsidies and privileges was 14-78% higher in the cities.

Russian poverty today is indicative of a systematic and self-reproducing phenomenon. It is extremely difficult to escape its clutches without external assistance, such as a coordinated state policy or charitable programmes organised by a third party. It is notable that this category mostly relates to families comprising two working parents and two children, something that happened extremely rarely in the past. On the whole, there is only one difference between poor families and the average Russian family (see Figure 6) – fewer working members and more children. In 1998, the dependence factor equalled 0.8 for an average family and 1.2 for families with a per capita income below the subsistence wage (it was 1.4 for families with two children). Consequently the high level of poverty in Russia cannot be attributed to a large number of minors or jobless. Poverty in this country is primarily characteristic of the employed part of the population.

The new poor - those who should not be in this group according to the main social indices – are not prepared psychologically for this new social role. It is not surprising that many of these individuals disregard their low incomes and continue to consider themselves as part of the middle class, as the results of sociological polls tend to indicate. It is much harder to abandon acknowledged social status than the consumption standards and savings that were accumulated over many long years.

Personal savings were always the first victims during the market reforms. Their purchasing ability fell by 26 times in 1992 alone. The state pledged to repay the guaranteed savings of the people (Federal Law «On the Restitution and Protection of Savings of the Citizens of the Russian Federation»). To date, however, only those over the age of 77 have had their savings partially repaid. The 1999 state budget allocated only 3 billion roubles for this purpose.

The people’s trust in the financial institutions and the state’s financial policy as a whole was put to several tests after 1992. For example, highly specific methods for protecting personal savings from the consequences of the financial crisis were offered to the people in 1998, implying the transfer of their savings in deposit accounts from commercial banks to Sberbank and a temporary freeze on them. But the people’s rouble savings were halved in 1998 alone.

Consequently it is hardly surprising that the popularity of keeping money in deposit accounts has always been very low in Russia. The share of savings as part of the people’s monetary incomes has been falling (see Figure 7). This trend has been registered for both organised and unorganised rouble savings.

The picture with hard currency savings looks slightly different. Spending on the purchase of hard currency, which represents only one form of savings, grew consistently before 1998, but joined the general downward trend after the August crisis. Nevertheless people still prefer to keep their savings in hard currency, which is only logical. The rouble equivalent of hard currency savings grew by 3.5 times in 1998, although only the richest gained from this. According to the Russian Statistics Agency, 20% of the richest in Russia accounted for over 70% of all hard currency savings before August 1998. The depreciation of rouble savings and the increased value of hard currency savings continued in 1999 (by an average of 2.8% and 2.4% a month, respectively).

Another outcome of the financial crisis was the people’s disillusionment in commercial financial structures. In this situation, Sberbank tried to consolidate its position. It currently enjoys a monopoly on 75% of the organised savings of the population.

Individual attempts have been made to compensate for the people’s material losses owing to drawbacks in state policy, but they are ineffective and have a demonstrative, rather than practical, significance. It is impossible to revive the people’s trust and thereby gain legal access to their remaining savings, which have been removed from economic circulation.

On the whole, people’s living standards deteriorated considerably in 1996-99. Real disposable incomes fell by 32% from December 1995 through October 1999 (see Figure 8 on page 16), while consumer prices increased 3.3 times. The consumption structure also deteriorated. Foods (including alcohol) accounted for over 59% of consumer expenditure in the second quarter of 1999, including 68% among the poorest 10% of the population. The situation on the labour market is also highly dubious.

The seemingly encouraging official information about the situation on the labour market is irrefutably indicative of one factor - the dominance of latent uncontrollable processes. Officially, the gradual decline in the total number of the employed over the past few years has been replaced by its growth in the second and third quarters of 1999. The number of unemployed gradually declined in 1999 and has stabilised at 8.7 million (11.7% of the economically active population), while the number of people officially registered as jobless is diminishing faster and faster. Even the August 1998 crisis did not lead to mass redundancies, contrary to numerous predictions by analysts.

However, the number of people officially registered as jobless barely amounts to 16% of the real number of unemployed. At the same time the state employment service cannot handle even this relatively small number of unemployed. Its employment programmes are underfinanced, with delays in the payment of unemployment benefits, although the size of benefits fluctuated from 20% to 100% of the subsistence wage (185-927 roubles a month as of October 1999).

Russian unemployment has for a long time now been a fact of life. This trend grew systematically until May this year. The average time spent looking for work unexpectedly fell from 10 months in May to 9.4 months in August 1999, when 45% of the unemployed (49.4% in May) had been trying to find a job for a year or more. But it would be premature to speak about changes in this long-term trend.

The practice of partial employment, initiated by enterprise management, is still applied broadly, although its scale is falling gradually. In 1998, over 10% of

the staff of large and small enterprises worked shorter working weeks, while another 11% were on administrative (frequently unpaid) leave of different duration, although the figures for January-September this year were 6.2% and 6.7%, respectively. The overall scale of enforced partial employment in the first nine months of 1999 equalled the daily absence of 0.7 million staff, which was 36% less than a year before.

According to certain estimates, the real unemployment level, including latent unemployment and employed individuals who have not received wages for a long time, amount to a third of the economically active population («Man and Work», No. 4, 1999, p. 38). On the other hand, about 25 million citizens work in the unofficial sector of the economy, and 30% of them draw their only source of income there and hence can be regarded officially, under certain conditions, as jobless («Man and Work», No. 11, 1999, p. 25).

Consequently it is very difficult to assess the real situation on the labour market, as it is influenced by a variety of factors which tend to have a different impact. The low ceiling of minimum guarantees (above all the minimum wage), which reduce the cost of labour and allow employers to avoid mass redundancies, play a certain role in curbing unemployment, or at least publicly. But latent unemployment is on the rise. It is clear that an optimum balance between the permissible level of unemployment and the minimum wage has still not been found.

The list of «losses» sustained by the population during the market reforms includes a reduction in free social guarantees. Indeed, owing to the initial reforms of the housing and communal sphere, education and health care, expenditure on these social elements is constantly increasing. In January-October 1999, the cost of housing and communal services grew by 28.8%, the cost of education grew by 28.7% and medical services by 30.7%, which exceeds the growth of commodity prices. On the whole, headlong growth in the cost of services was curbed in 1998. However, this does not mean that the reforms were completed. Instead it would be more truthful to say they were frozen in the social sphere, owing in part to their unpopularity.

As a result, we have witnessed virtually no radical changes in the breakdown of family expenditure on services over the past four years. Their overall share

(which jumped in 1996-97) returned to the level of virtually four years ago: 13.9% of consumer spending in 1998 as against 13.7% in 1995. The low share of expenditure on services constitutes further proof of the deteriorating material situation of Russian citizens. At the same time, 5.2% of consumer expenditure was allocated to rent and communal services (4.8% of the family budget), as against 4.3% in 1995, while spending on education went down from 1.2% to 1%. Health care expenditure grew by only 0.2% (from 0.4% to 0.6% of family consumer expenses).

It should be said that owing to this tactic of semi-reform, which provokes uncertainty above all in terms of financing, the social sphere cannot be extricated from its current crisis and people’s complaints to the state are only likely to increase. For example, although 13% of Russian families are waiting for free state housing, the size of free state assistance to individuals requiring an improvement in housing conditions is falling consistently. As a result, almost 9% of the housing built for the aforementioned category was bought or acquired through the system of housing cooperatives.

The same situation exists in other social spheres. Although free general education is still guaranteed, reduced subsidies and chronic wage arrears lead to the withdrawal of subjects from the school curriculum, as there are insufficient teaching staff. This leads to a disruption in the system of equal starting conditions that must be guaranteed to all school graduates in all regions of the country and all districts of large cities, and affects school educational standards.

The creation of a compulsory medical insurance system was mostly completed in 1998, with 84% of the population receiving insurance polices. However, many people still don’t know their rights and duties in this respect. Most people still use the services of nearby outpatient clinics, wondering why the number of free medical services has been reduced and why the remaining services have become less available and their quality has deteriorated.

Although they advocate the restoration of social guarantees to the pre-reform level, the left-wing majority in the State Duma still voted for a budget with a level of social expenditure that is apparently lower than is required to properly fulfil all state obligations. Although budgetary spending on education, health care and social policy (in terms of the percentage of the total) has grown over the past few years, it is still way below the 1991 level. In addition, the federal authorities delegated a considerable part of their powers to the regional level, which merely complicated the task of fulfilling the unrealistic budgets of the past few years.

It has been acknowledged for a long time now that the levels of social tension and crime are closely related. Russia has witnessed a new stage in the worsening crime rate ever since 1998. The number of registered crimes, including economic crimes, has increased. Most economic crimes subject to compulsory investigation involve property (57% in January-October 1999), have little bearing on economic activities (15%) or are directed against different branches and levels of state power (11%). About 20% of economic crimes are committed in the financial-credit system. A total of 6,400 cases of bribe-taking by state authorities (4% of all economic crimes) were exposed in the first ten months of 1999, which is more than in 1998 as a whole (5,800).

The problem of drugs and weapons trafficking is constantly worsening, while the number of kidnapped and forcefully held individuals is growing. Hostages are still being taken, murders are being ordered and terrorist acts are being committed in the country.

Environmental crime, a relatively new type of crime, is skyrocketing. It grew by 55.3% on January-October 1998, although the ecological situation is not complicated by criminal acts alone. The Russian State Committee for Hydrometeorology registered over 130 natural disasters, which damaged both the ecology and the economy in 1999.

Consequently, contrary to most of the pre-election promises of the deputies, the 6th State Duma, which had been accorded broad powers, failed to improve the situation in the country in the social and employment spheres.

As has already been noted, the composition of the State Duma was extremely favourable from the viewpoint of proclaimed social policies. If they had wanted

to do so, the left could have approved and lobbied social laws, but this was not their aim. Analysis of the law-making activities of the Duma indicates that not a single serious law was approved over the past four years, which had the requisite financial backing. The deputies denounced the executive authorities, advanced populist suggestions on how to improve the people’s living standards and staged major battles, which transformed the sessions of the country’s top legislative assembly into a show effectively crowned by the approval of threatening resolutions. As a rule, however, this had virtually no impact on legislation, if only because the resolutions lack the force of federal laws. During its period of activity the Duma reviewed hundreds of federal laws and several hundred resolutions.

Most social laws approved by the State Duma had local significance, since they stipulated a legal regulation of problems that concerned the interests of a very narrow group of the population (for example, the staff of the tax police or the residents of the city of Baikonur), which constituted proof of the deputies’ concern for local, rather than state, interests. This virtually coincided with the government’s «divide and rule» method of pitting the interests of social groups and territories against each other. It was simply impossible to resolve existing private problems without changing their principled stands.

It is worth noting that there was no systematic approach to the development of social legislation. Blocks of related draft laws, or codified acts, were heard only rarely. More often the deputies approved laws that stipulated rather loose or redundant conditions for their implementation. Frequently promised raises in different social payments were postponed, as they were not stipulated by the budget and other sources of financing could not be found.

At the same time, the left had enough votes and political will to block any legislative initiatives on social and employment issues advanced by their opponents. So what did the 6th Duma change – or at least try to change – in labour and social legislation?
See the appendix for the full list of social and labour federal laws, approved by the 6th Duma and enforced since then.

Let us begin with amendments to the Labour Code. The State Duma passed, and the Federal Council approved, the Federal Law «On Amendments and Additions to the Labour Code of the Russian Federation». The draft included a number of changes, in particular:

Ю an edited list of instances where an emergency labour contract can be signed;

Ю the right of a worker to stop working in the case of wage arrears of over 10 days;

The history behind this document is truly dramatic. The deputies worked on it for nearly five years. The draft law was only approved and signed by the President in late 1999. Unfortunately, the approved version does not include vital norms guaranteeing the rights of workers. But this is the price of compromise.

Three versions of the new Labour Code are currently in the State Duma.. However, they are so inept that the new Duma will probably have to start again from scratch.

The approval of amendments to the Law on Employment considerably expanded the powers of federation subjects in the employment sphere. In complex cases (for example, in depressive regions), subjects of the Russian Federation may independently establish the procedure for registering the jobless and paying unemployment benefit. As there are 50 depressive regions in the federation now and virtually each territory has a complicated labour market, this norm implies omnipotence of the administrations of Russian Federation subjects in this sphere.

The past Duma approved several norms that lead to a deterioration in the situation of the jobless. This concerns above all the category of «suitable job». Since 1999 this applies to any job offering an income that is not lower than the subsistence wage. The previous wording of the law entitled the jobless to refuse a job that offered an income lower than his previous employment.

At the same time, several amendments to the law enhanced the social protection of the unemployed:

Ю it established the right of individuals engaged in socially-useful employment to receive unemployment benefits in addition to the wages they receive for such jobs during the period of recognition of their official status;

Ю it stipulated a minimum unemployment benefit of at least 20% of the subsistence minimum (instead of the minimum wage) for first-time job seekers and for the long-term unemployed and in certain other cases. But this norm makes it more advantageous to receive unemployment benefit than accept a low-paid job. This largely concerns women, who constitute 62% of the of ficially registered jobless in this country;

Ю the size of the unemployment benefit was revised from 50% of the minimum wage to 10-30% of the subsistence minimum. This amounts to a raise from 43 roubles to 96-288 roubles as of October 1999.

The law introduces the criteria for determining «socially-useful employment» as generally available types of work, including social services, which are particularly interesting to women.

The existence of a number of laws and other normative acts stipulating state regulation of wages for different categories of workers, in addition to the decrees of the President of the Russian Federation establishing the wages of state employees, can be considered as a step forward:

Ю the Federal Law «On Streamlining Wage Payments to Public Sector Work ers» stipulates a mixed system for regulating wage payments for public sector staff. The size of the 1st category wage rate of the Unified Tariff Scale is stipulated by the federal law, while inter-tariff relations are stipulated by government resolutions on agreement with national organisations of workers and employers. The 1st category tariff rate of the Unified Tariff Scale is higher than the minimum wage (110 roubles);

Ю the Federal Law «On the Specific Elements of Legal Regulation of the Joint Stock Companies of Workers (Public Enterprises)» formalised the balance of wage payments of enterprise directors and staff;

Ю the Federal Law «On Additional Guarantees of the Social Insurance of Judges and the Staff of Courts of the Russian Federation» stipulates the size of wages for court staff as a percentage of the wages of the Chairmen of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Arbitration Court;

Ю the Regulations on the terms for wage payments to directors of state enterprises applicable at the time of the signing of labour contracts with them, approved by Government Resolution No. 210 of March 21, 1994, stipulates the actual wages for the directors of state enterprises, depending on the number of personnel, in relation to the size of the 1st category tariff rate wage of the workers of the basic profession [at the given enterprise].

The laws «On Amendments and Additions to the Labour Code» and «On Monetary Compensation for Workers Owing to Breaches of the Deadline for Wage Payments or Sums of Money Due to a Worker on Dismissal» stipulate a fine for non-payment of wages amounting to 1/300th part of the refinancing rate of the Central Bank per each day of arrears.

The procedure for writing off insufficient resources of targeted budgetary allocations to the wage fund from the accounts of organisations is stipulated by the law «On Additions to Article 855 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation», approved by the State Duma. Pursuant to the law, the resources of targeted budgetary allocations can only be written off to the wage fund and corresponding social payments fund. It also establishes that these resources should not be subject to confiscation.

The guarantees of wage payments in the event of the cessation of the activity of an employer and his insolvency are stipulated by the Federal Law «On the Insolvency (Bankruptcy) of Organisations», and also by the Law «On Amendments and Additions to the Labour Code of the Russian Federation», approved by the State Duma.

The Duma approved the Basic Provisions of Compulsory Social Insurance, which brought together the bulk of norms regulating this sphere of legislation (definitions, relations between the parties, insured cases, and types of social insurance payments). However, this is not a direct-action document and consequently will not seriously improve the social insurance of workers. If the chapter on social insurance is removed from the Labour Code, it will worsen the current situation. In addition, this law reaffirmed the sex discrimination norm, whereby maternity, rather than parenthood, is an insured case involving the payment of insurance money. This represents a step back from the current Labour Law and the ILO Convention No. 156, which concerns workers with family obligations, rather than only working mothers.

As for pensions, the dozen laws approved by the Duma have not improved pensioners’ living standards. The size of pensions remain laughable and the notion of a labour pension has been virtually liquidated.

The new system for calculating pensions (using an individual coefficient) has created major problems concerning the implementation of this law, led to a number of trials throughout the country, and has failed to protect pensioners from poverty.

The draft laws on the protection of the interests of children and the family are purely declaratory documents.

Several approved laws stipulate additional privileges for certain categories of individual citizens, including low-income citizens, single mothers, the spouses and

parents of Heroes [of the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation] and full knights of the Order of Glory, the widows of servicemen who perished during the war with Finland and Japan, the residents of Northern regions, and others.

Virtually nothing was done to stabilise the situation in health care, education, science and culture.

The additions and amendments to Article 855 of the Civil Code (mentioned above) may be considered a success. They stipulated priority payments of wages, deductions to the Pension Fund, the Social Insurance Fund, the State Employment Fund and compulsory medical insurance funds. However, this is a success in name only, as the executive authorities ignore these norms, just as they ignore other laws.

Consequently, the laws approved by the Duma in the labour and social spheres are characterised by the lack of any system and priorities, the time-serving nature of these laws, the targeting of small groups of the population, and consequently their ineffectiveness.

Why did the Duma, and especially its left-wing majority, fail to uphold their core social priorities? Was this failure due to unwillingness or impotence? What are the real, rather than proclaimed, powers of the Russian parliament? What role did parliament play in the elaboration of state policy?

Until recently work for the supreme legislative agency of the country was regarded as an honourable and responsible activity, which led to the election of the most respected and capable members of society. And nothing else. It was considered improper to show off the other perks of state service. Today we can evaluate the attractiveness of this work, not only from a moral angle. The intensity and methods used in the electoral struggle waged by a large number of candidates, which Russia’s society has witnessed for a third time now, can hardly be attributed only to a desire to serve the public.

The struggle for seats in the State Duma is above all a struggle for power. We will try to work out later on whether this power is real or imaginary.

The financial factor is also important, as the work of deputies is one of the highest paid (within the legal economy). Politics and power in Russia have been transformed into a business with all the elements of commercial activity inherent in Russia, ranging from the means of subsistence to the means of enrichment. Pursuant to the law «On the Status of a Member of the Federation Council and the Status of Deputy of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation», the deputies of the State Duma stand on a par with federal ministers in terms of the number of social guarantees, while the Duma speaker and his deputies are on a par with the Prime Minister and his deputies. All deputies (apart from the speaker) receive a monthly payment equal to the wage of a federal minister (the speaker obtains as much as the Prime Minister). It amounted to 9,000 roubles in October 1999, or 8.7 subsistence wages. The deputies and their families receive reimbursements for the cost of their relocation to Moscow and return to their permanent places of residence on completion of their term of office. Non-Muscovites are provided with free (although temporary) housing in Moscow.

The deputies have the right to a 48-day paid leave, including payment for medical treatment amounting to double their monthly wage. Upon retirement, they receive a monthly addition to their state pensions, which increases the overall sum to 55-75% of the deputy’s wage at the time of payment. A pension addition is designated for all citizens who have served as a deputy for at least a year, and its size fluctuates, depending on their specific term of office. In addition, deputies of the State Duma have the right to medical, sanatorium and health resort services and everyday conditions at federal ministerial level.

During their term of office, the deputies may use free of charge all modes of transport (except taxis) and means of communication, and are provided with state cars for trips related to the fulfilment of their duties.

On the other hand, the deputies have quite a few duties, including the important obligation of working for their electorate. This form of feedback allows them to carefully evaluate the effectiveness of their activities without having to resort to opinion polls and referendums.

During each session, the reception office of the State Duma handles an average of 25,000 requests from the people: the content of these inquiries hardly changes from session to session. Over a third of the letters received during the 1999 spring session concerned statements and complaints about the work of the local authorities and requests for help resolving specific problems, while 60% of letters concern social issues, the financial standing of enterprises, law and order.

Social issues constituted the bulk of requests during the term of the 6th Duma (37% in the summer of 1999, and 40% in 1997). As a rule, the people write to their deputies about pension problems and the provision of various benefits, housing problems, timely and fair remuneration, and the availability of health services and education (see Figure 9). Many letters contain persistent requests for an increase in the minimum pension to the subsistence minimum and for their regular indexation. Groups of people, mostly teachers and medical staff, often complain about their small wages and wage arrears in the public sector. Housing complaints mostly concern the refusal of local authorities to provide housing to those citizens with a priority right to housing. The people also write about their rent and communal debts caused by an inability to pay these excessive fees.

Consequently, analysis of these letters casts a bright light on the acutest problems of the people. In addition the list of these complaints compiled at the end of the deputies’ term of office virtually coincides with the electoral promises of most deputies.

At the same time the work of the deputies is also fraught with a number of risks, which arise during the electoral campaign. Many candidates, especially those running in single-mandate districts, feel a criminal pressure on them during both the electoral campaign and their term in parliament. Over the past four years, the mass media has frequently referred to the assassination of deputies of different legislative assemblies. However, few of these cases will be heard in court. At best, the law-enforcers manage to find the actual murderers: however, the individuals who hired the contract killers remain untouched. By early October this year, 11.3% of deputies surrendered their mandates, including 2% who died. In all other cases (except for one deputy who resigned voluntarily) the deputies accepted posts in the executive authorities of different level (see Figure 10).

It should be borne in mind that the posts in executive authorities were offered mostly to those deputies who were elected in single-mandate districts (71%), in other words, deputies who represent the most independent part of the deputy corps. The bulk of the former deputies now work in federal ministries and departments (68%): only half of the above figure (32%) returned to their regions.

Another specific feature of work in the legislative assembly is also perceptible: work in the State Duma is often considered as the first step in a political career, which is subsequently continued in the executive structures. In addition, such movement can bring together different branches of power under the banner of party interests. One of the recent examples of such «cooperation» concerns the government of Yevgeny Primakov, whose key members were Yuri Maslyukov and Gennady Kulik, who had been Duma deputies from the Communist Party.

The apparent interest of politicians in executive power is logical, as the top echelons of executive power hold the reins of real power. Russian legislative power is quite relative, as deputies lack any real instruments for influencing the government and consequently cannot ensure the fulfilment of its decisions. The enlarged cabinet of ministers controls all financial flows: access to these flows has always been the main criterion of real power. Even the size of monetary remuneration is determined (and paid) by the President of Russia. And nothing will change until the functions and competence of the Russian parliament are reviewed.

This explains the failure of the deputies to see through any social reforms. The social sphere, which merely constitutes the consumer of benefits created in the real economy sector at the initial stage of distribution, cannot be the only lever used to overcome the crisis. Consequently, the level of its development is directly dependent on the effectiveness of industry (we all remember the unsuccessful attempts to resolve social problems through financial speculation or loans), and consequently on the economic policy of the state elaborated by the government. The deputies can only slightly correct the development strategy chosen by the cabinet. In conditions of financial dependence, the social policy inevitably deteriorates into «hole-mending».

In all 26 electoral blocs and associations were allowed, pursuant to the decision of the Central Electoral Committee, to participate in the recent parliamentary elections and seek election to the State Duma of the 1999-2003 convocation (43 blocs participated in the previous elections four years ago). Parties and movements of different political leaning, representing the whole political spectrum of Russia today - from the extreme left to the extreme right - were ready to fight for deputy mandates. The extreme left-wing association «Spas», headed by the Russian National Unity leader nationalist Alexander Barkashov, was barred from the elections by the Central Electoral Committee 25 days prior to the elections. In addition, shortly before election day the Russian Conservative Party of Entrepreneurs lost its right to take part in the elections, while the Green Party - «The Ecological Party of Russia» - decided to quit the election marathon at the final stage of the campaign. Consequently, the following forces took part in the political field this time:

According to the election results, only six electoral blocs managed to enter the Duma. As in the past the Communists were the leaders - the CPRF was supported by 24.29%1 of the electorate. They were followed by the «Unity» («the Bear») bloc that was hastily organised by the Kremlin - it gathered 23.24% of the votes. Third place was taken by the «Fatherland - All Russia» bloc, which lagged a little behind the leaders - 13.12% of the electorate chose this bloc. The «Union of Right Wing Forces» bloc was also one of the winners, gaining 8.60% of the votes. This list was completed by the «Zhirinovsky Bloc» (6.04%) and «Yabloko» (5.98%). Other parties and movements participating in the parliamentary elections of 1999 did not simply fail to overcome the 5% barrier: they did not even manage to gain more than 2%; most of them gained less than 1%.

Consequently the composition of the State Duma has been determined. Let us try to analyse what the population can expect to gain from the new Duma. Here we should turn to those sections of the electoral programmes of the electoral blocs that refer to social policies.

As was the case four years ago, the successful blocs announced their programmes during the election campaign. However, as the texts of these programmes were not published in the mass media, it would not be surprising to discover that the competing blocs failed to disseminate their electoral platforms to their voters. Let us dwell in more detail on how the election winners view social priorities and the mechanisms for their implementation.

First of all we should note here that the social programmes of all the representatives of the new Duma are similar in terms of the final objective. Irrespective of the political orientation of the programme’s authors (right or left), they all express a desire to improve the population’s living standards. However, the means used to reach this goal differ.

When you read the electoral programme of the «Fatherland - All Russia» bloc (OVR), entitled «Laws in the Name of Russia», you cannot help feeling that OVR was sure that it would achieve a convincing victory in the parliamentary elections. Already considering itself as a Duma faction, the bloc virtually drafted a programme capable in their opinion of guaranteeing «productive legislative activity» in the new Duma. A package, including over 100 draft laws that embraced a wide range of urgent problems, was prepared and submitted to the public. Social initiatives that provide social guarantees and protect the socially vulnerable population strata constitute the bloc’s priority legislative goals. This is all reflected in a proposed Social Code.

An increase in incomes constitutes the most important element of the bloc’s social policy, in order to «provide Russian citizens with normal living standards». The state must do all it can to ensure at least a subsistence minimum, so that «no honest workers are paid less than the subsistence minimum». This is the first programme demand of the OVR. The second demand: special attention should be paid to the incomes of pensioners and budget workers. The minimum pension should be raised to the subsistence minimum level. It should be indexed on a regular basis, as should the minimum wage and social payments. Thirdly, personal income tax should be reduced. Fourthly, the bloc proposes a transition to wages paid on an hourly basis. The bloc’s programme includes other priority directions for social policy, such as: support for Russian families and care for women, especially if they have small children. However, the type of aid and its scope should be determined proceeding from the needs of a specific individual, family and situation.

The mechanism for implementing these priorities in social policy should be provided above all by a strong state, effective government and state regulation of the economy (which would not imply an abolition of the market, but rather a condition of its functioning).

The programme of the Union of Right Wing Forces (SPS) resembles a long report, rather than an actual electoral programme. Implementation of its recommendations would require a long period - four or five years - and is clearly targeted for the presidential elections in 2000 and a return to the executive authority. It focuses on a free market economy, with priority for human rights over state rights. The state should guarantee security and freedom, above all political and economic freedom. This means first and foremost: curbs on state interference in entrepreneurial activity, protection of private property, equal opportunities in work and choice of profession, direct support for the disabled through targeted social protection. Today the following are the most serious social problems for the population: arrears and non-payment of wages, pensions and benefits; late indexation of monetary payments; the pauperisation of most of the population. To prevent any further negative developments, the bloc proposes full-scale implementation of reforms that have been required for a long time, in particular, tax and pension reforms.

The main provision of the proposed tax reform concerns a general reduction in the tax burden, in particular in the social sphere: this would involve a transfer to a proportional profits tax at a uniform rate (12%), including a high tax-free basis, and a reduction to a maximum 35% (from the present 50-54%) of aggregate additional charges to the wage fund.

The pension reform involves above all a phased transition to a distributive-cumulative system of pension financing. The main areas of the reform here concern the following: labour pensions, the terms and conditions for introducing a cumulative

component of the pension and the system for providing early pensions. However, the SPS considers these to be priority medium-term goals and proposes the short-term implementation of the following measures:

Ю More rapid indexation of minimum pensions, which will both reduce the differentiation of pensions financed from the distributive system, and narrow the growing gap between the minimum pension and pensioner’s subsistence minimum.

Ю Restrictions on preferential pensions for some categories of pensioners, in so far as they are not justified socially and have no direct relation on the cumulative principles of pension financing.

Within the near future, from the year 2002, the «right» plan to start raising the pension age for men and women to 65 and 60 years respectively. Subsequently the pension age will be levelled irrespective of sex at 65 years of age.

Considerable attention is paid to labour relations. The SPS submitted a protracted Projected Reform of Labour Relations. The reforms focus on a large number of specific tasks, including the steps and mechanisms that need to be taken to implement these tasks, with respect to employment regulation, wages and an income policy. The following pronounced tasks can be singled out: transfer to a fixed unemployment benefit (today the size of this benefit is set commensurate to a worker’s wage at his/her last place of work); aid targeted for specific groups of the unemployed; application of measures stipulated for debtor-enterprises (in other words bankruptcy) against any enterprise which has not paid staff wages; indexation of the minimum wage in line with the subsistence minimum dynamics.

In terms of social protection for the population and specific social guarantees granted to the population by the state, especially in monetary terms, the position of SPS is simple - it should be granted to specific groups, proceeding from per capita income, rather than according to social category.

Yabloko used as its main slogan during the election campaign «In Favour of a Dignified Life». After proclaiming its role to be that of a civil party and socially oriented movement, Yabloko has advocated a strong state social policy, as it perceives this to be an unconditional moral obligation, and believes that such a policy can and should act as a catalyst for the economy, as the essence and goal of economic policy. This constitutes the principle difference between Yabloko and the radical democrats, who regard the social sphere only as a system of social protection and irritating obstacle to macro-economic transformations.

Yabloko believes that social policy should seek to encourage demand as the basis for economic growth, which will make it possible to achieve the social goals of the economy, rather than seek to curb demand (as an anti-inflationary measure). Yabloko’s social goals can be summed up as follows:

Ю a gradual narrowing of the gap between the minimum wage and the subsist- ence minimum,

Ю an increase in the average wage of state employees, close to the average wage in the economy,

Ю protection of workers from an employer’s insolvency (involving a system of sanctions, from the indexation of wage arrears to the declared bankrupt cy of an enterprise),

Ю a phased increase in the social (minimum) pension to the subsistence mini - mum and revival of the labour pension and in future personification of pen- sion deposits and development of a system of private pensions,

Ю a significant increase in the level of social guarantees for the disabled, es- pecially for the handicapped and children.

In health care the minimum compulsory size and possibilities of medical aid to be guaranteed by the state should be defined. The expenditure of the population on medical services should be deducted from their personal taxable income. Enterprises paying medical services for their workers should be able to deduct these amounts from the taxable base used to calculate the profits tax. Paid health care institutions should be entitled to significant tax breaks stipulated by law.

Yabloko considers support for education as one of its main priorities and sets itself the task of creating a clear-cut legal mechanism to guarantee the constitutional right of citizens for generally accessible and free education. Yabloko has already prepared a draft law «On Guaranteeing the Constitutional Rights of Citizens to General Education».

Academic and sectoral university science and research should receive state support. Research programmes and projects should receive support, based on the development of a competitive system of state grants.

Yabloko proposes the following draft laws as part of its social and labour legislative priorities: The Law «On State Guarantees for Wages», Law «On Monetary Compensation for Workers Owing to Breaches in the Term Limits for Wage Payments», Law «On Promoting Employment», Law «On the Citizens’ Rights to Specially Targeted Social Aid», Law «On Pensions», laws on the ratification of international conventions to protect labour rights, including ratification of the European Social Charter.

It goes without saying that the social measures proposed in the programme can only be implemented in a developing economy. However, even today the state can and must find financial means to resolve the most urgent social tasks, once it has clearly established its main priorities.

The CPRF electoral platform, confidently entitled «Growth Strategy» is reminiscent of the style of party documents of the Soviet era. It is based as always on criticism of the «anti-popular regime», which has been present in all party documents of the post-Soviet period. The second part of the platform is based on its programme on how to extricate the country from the current crisis. The communists’ pre-election platform is also redolent of an anti-crisis programme (that will take one - two years). It is intimidating in its socialist rhetoric and declaration of general principles and promises and represents the main trends of the economic anti-crisis programme, with an ideology that mixes the principles of socialist equality, economic efficiency and state patriotism.

Social policy in a «socialist market economy» merely constitutes a «social component», with the final goal of «improvement of the welfare of the people» and «the attainment of high living standards and quality of life for the population». According to the communists, available opportunities (if they are mobilised) for economic growth should guarantee at least 20% growth in the real wage (25-40% in the budget sector) and 20% of the real pension. The minimum wage and minimum pension are equated to the subsistence minimum and should be fully indexed whenever the subsistence minimum rises by over 6%. The state should support first and foremost the poorest - children, single mothers, families with many children, pensioners and the unemployed. The state should guarantee anyone who cannot maintain «a dignified standard of living» through his or her labour, an income no lower than the subsistence minimum, as well as a system of social standards for free health care, social services and education. The communists intend to transfer the tax burden from poor citizens to citizens with high and extremely high incomes. In addition, they assert that they can guarantee full employment and promise to eradicate widespread unemployment, accepting an upper threshold in forced unemployment of no more than 1% of the economically active population. They are committed to restoring within five years the population’s savings that were depreciated by the ruling regime.

However, what prevented the left-wing majority in the Duma from implementing their goals during their work in the State Duma in 1995-1999? Clearly this is a rhetorical question.

The «Unity» movement that secured one of the best results in the elections failed to submit any programme at all. By proclaiming itself to be the party of power, it thereby indicated its full support for the Government’s actions in social policies.

As for the LDPR and Zhirinovsky, experience has indicated that its presence in the Duma has always been linked to commercial, rather than economic or social interests.

These were the programmes of the electoral blocs in the new State Duma. According to one political scientist, the Duma was elected by the Government and Governors, in other words by the present executive authority.

Will such a Duma manage to radically alter the situation in the social sphere, and above all, do the deputies really want to? Today the situation can only be changed, by enforcing radical changes to the mutual relations of authorities and, consequently, the present Constitution by significantly reducing the competence of the President and his Administration and forming relations with the Governors on the basis of law, rather than personal agreements and, most importantly representing the interests of the citizens. But such wide-ranging measures cannot objectively be implemented by a pro-governmental Duma.

Consequently the Government will once again fail to pay scanty wages and pensions, and will then combat these non-payments together with parliament. Once again normative acts establishing a miserable pittance for certain categories of citizens will be adopted, once again rights to employment and social insurance will be breached, while science, education and culture will remain under-financed. The inertia of destruction determining the situation in Russia over the past decade will remain. A new President (with elections scheduled within six months) could theoretically overcome this inertia and pool resources to create a new life. But during these six months social problems will inevitably once again become most popular. As experience of Russia’s reforms has already indicated, social policy has always been a hostage of big-time politics and its popularity has always ended in sheer populism. Neither a great President or a strong Prime Minister will be able to change this situation. Only civil society realising its place and interests and free from the culture of sovereign vassals will be able to assert its social rights and force power to serve the law rather than itself. However, Russia is only at the beginning of this path.

1. On Additions and Amendments to Article 213 of the Labour Code of the Russian Federation (abolition of the established restriction on the time limit for paying for forced leave and the timing for illicit transfer to another place of work).

The Law was published in Rossiiskaya Gazeta on March 20, 19972. On Additions and Amendments to Article 15 of the Labour Code of the Russian Federation (the terms for non-divulgence of official and commercial secrets should be included in the labour contract). The Law was published in the Collection of Laws of the Russian Federation No. 19 on May 11, 19983. On Amendments and Additions to Article 235 of the Labour Code of the Russian Federation (members of commissions for labour disputes may be transferred to another job or subjected to disciplinary actions only with the agreement of the commission members, and can be released only with the agreement of a general meeting). The Law was published in Rossiiskaya Gazeta on August 5, 19984. On Amendments and Additions to the Labour Code of the Russian Federation (a 70-day pre-natal leave [84 days in case of multiple births], a 70-day post-natal leave [86 days in case of complicated births and 110 days in case of multiple births]). The Law was published in the Collection of Laws of the Russian Federation No. 49 on December 2, 19965. On Amendments and Additions to the Labour Code of the Russian Federation (further to the ratification of the convention on equal treatment of and equal opportunities for working males and females: workers with family obligations). The Law was published in Rossiiskaya Gazeta on May 12, 1999

1. On Amendments to Article 20-1 of the Russian Federation Law On Collective Agreements and Contracts (the formation of the Russian Tri-partite Commission).

1. On Amendments and Additions to the Russian Federation Law On Employment in the Russian Federation (new wording of the original law).

1. On Additions to Article 12 of the RSFSR Law On State Pensions in the RSFSR (males at 55, females at 50, minimum allowed work record of no less than 15 and 10 years, respectively, with the overall record of work of 25 and 20 years, respectively, if pensioners have been working with prison inmates as manual and office workers in agencies of the penitentiary system).

2. On Individual (Personified) Accounting in the System of Government Pension Insurance (an individual account is opened for every employee to cater to the employee for the duration of their life, which contains data on their work record, wages, appointments, the indexing and payment of pensions).
The Law was published in the Collection of Laws of the Russian Federation No. 14 on April 1, 1996

3. On Raising the Minimum Pension and Regulations for Indexing and Reassessing State Pensions in the Russian Federation as of May 1, 1996 (minimum pension 69.57 rubles, indexed by 1.1).
The Law was published in the Collection of Laws of the Russian Federation No. 22 on May 27, 1996
4. On Additions to Article 110 of the Russian Federation Law On State Pensions in the Russian Federation (Olympic champions receive a raise of 50%, but no more than 100% of the minimum old-age pension).
The Law was published in the Collection of Laws of the Russian Federation No. 5 on January 29, 1997
5. On Additions to Article 110 of the Russian Federation Law On State Pensions in the Russian Federation (many-time Heroes of the Soviet Union and Heroes of Socialist Labour receive a raise of 50%, but no more than 100% of the minimum old-age pension).
The Law was published in Rossiiskaya Gazeta on March 20, 1997
6. On Raising the Minimum Pension and Regulations for Indexing and Reassessing State Pensions in the Russian Federation in 1997 (76.53 rubles as of October 1, 1997 and 84.20 rubles as of December 1, 1997).
The Law was published in the Collection of Laws of the Russian Federation No. 40 on October 6, 1997
7. On Amendments and Additions to Article 100 of the Russian Federation Law On State Pensions in the Russian Federation (incomes used for the assessment of pensions include payments to the military, temporary unemployment benefits and student grants).
The Law was published in Rossiiskaya Gazeta on March 20, 1997
8. On Regulations for Assessing and Raising State Pensions (a pensioner’s individual index is introduced to help assess pensions).
The Law was published in the Collection of Laws of the Russian Federation No. 30 on July 28, 1997
9. On Amendments and Additions to Article 112 of the Russian Federation Law On State Pensions in the Russian Federation (pensions are assessed on the basis of a regional index established for a pensioner’s domicile, with a cut-off limit of 1.5).
The Law was published in the Collection of Laws of the Russian Federation No. 13 on March 30, 1998
10. On Amendments and Additions to Article 87 of the Russian Federation Law On State Pensions in the Russian Federation (pensions are paid in full to health care staff who continue working or have worked in townships for 25 years).
The Law was published in the Collection of Laws of the Russian Federation No. 15 on April 13, 1998
11. On Non-Government Pension Funds.
The Law was published in the Collection of Laws of the Russian Federation No, 19 on May 11, 1998
12. On the Procedure for Financing State Pensions Paid from the Federal Budget Pursuant to the Legislation of the Russian Federation (demarcation of the sources of financing for labour pensions and pensions paid from the federal budget, advance allocation of federal budgetary payments of state pensions and expenditures related to the delivery and dispatch of all types of pensions).
The Law was published in Rossiiskaya Gazeta on November 3, 1998
13. On Amendments to the Russian Federation Law On State Pensions in the Russian Federation (maximum pensions for civil aviation pilots to be brought up to 220% of the average national monthly wage, additional tariff of insurance payments to the Pension Fund at 14%).
The Law was published in Rossiiskaya Gazeta on March 3, 1999
14. On Amendments and Additions to the Russian Federation Law On Pensions to Servicemen of the Army and the Interior Troops and Their Families (holders of the Order of Glory of three degrees, and many-time Heroes of the Soviet Union and Heroes of Socialist Labour receive a raise of 50% but no more than 100% of the minimum old-age pension).
The Law was published in Rossiiskaya Gazeta on December 24, 1997
15. On Amendments and Additions to Articles 5 and 110 of the Russian Federation Law On State Pensions in the Russian Federation (widows of servicemen killed in the war with Finland and the war with Japan are entitled to a second pension).
The Law was published in Rossiiskaya Gazeta on July 21, 1999
16. On the Payment of Pensions for their Record of Service to Health Care Staff Employed in Medicinal and Other Capacities in the Health Care System in the Countryside (medics who continue to work and have worked for 25 years in the countryside are paid a pension for their record of service in full).
The Law was published in the Collection of laws of the Russian Federation No. 17 on April 22, 1996
17. On the Payment of Pensions For Record of Service to Educational Staff Employed in Tuition in Schools and Other Educational Establishments for Children (educational staff who continue to work and have a record of pedagogical service of 25 years are paid pensions for record of service in full).
The Law was published in the Collection of Laws of the Russian Federation No. 10 on March 4, 1996
18. On Compulsory Social Insurance Cover for Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases (reimbursement to victims is guaranteed; it stipulates a mechanism for providing economic incentives to employers, principle for differentiating insurance tariffs depending on the labour conditions, traumatism and occupational disease rate).
The Law was published in Rossiiskaya Gazeta on August 12, 1998
19. On the Fundamentals for Compulsory Social Insurance (a system of compulsory social insurance).

1. On the Subsistence Minimum in the Russian Federation (the subsistence minimum becomes a basic unit; correlation between minimum wage, minimum old-age pension and subsistence minimum for the next fiscal year is established by the Federal Law on the federal budget; the consumer basket is specified every five ears).

1. On Additional Guarantees of Social Protection of Orphans and Minors Left Without Parental Guidance (the basic law provides additional guarantees on rights to education, assets, housing and employment).

The Law was published in the Collection of Laws of the Russian Federation No, 52 on December 23, 1996
2. On Amendments and Additions to the Housing Code of the RSFSR (orphans and minors left without parental guidance retain the right to housing and priority allocation thereof, following their stay in educational and medical establishments, as well as in-patient social security institutions, service in the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation and on return from a penitentiary, if the residential accommodation that they previously had cannot be returned to them).
The Law was published in the Collection of Laws of the Russian Federation No. 13 on March 30, 1998
3. On Amendments to Article 2 of the Russian Federation Law On Housing Privatisation in the Russian Federation (the housing of orphans and minors left without parental guidance is made their property).
The Law was published in the Collection of Laws of the Russian Federation No. 13 on March 30, 1998
4. On Amendments to Article 8 of the Federal Law On Additional Guarantees of Social Protection of Orphans and Minors Left Without Parental Guidance (specifies the norms for formalizing agreements pertaining to the ownership of housing of minors under and over 14 years old).
The Law was published in the Collection of Laws of the Russian Federation No. 7 on February 16, 1998
5. On Benefits for Travel on Intercity Transport by Children in Need of Treatment at Resorts (50% of the fare once a year for a child and escort from the family, whose income does not exceed the subsistence minimum).
The Law was published in the Collection of Laws of the Russian Federation No. 29 on July 20, 1998
6. On Benefits for Travel on Intercity Transport by Certain Categories of Students of State and Municipal Educational Establishments (students coming from families with a per capita income that does not exceed the subsistence minimum are entitled to a 50% reduction in the fare on intercity transport in the period between October 1 and May 15 and once in summer time [to the place of destination and back] between May 16 and September 30).
The law was published in Rossiiskaya Gazeta on June 2, 1999
7. On Amendments to the Federal Law On Public Unions (minimum age requirement for members of public unions is 8 years old).
The Law was published in the Collection of Laws of the Russian Federation No. 20 on May 19, 1997
8. On Basic Guarantees of the Rights of Children in the Russian Federation.
The Law was published in Rossiiskaya Gazeta on August 5, 1998
9. On Amendments to the Russian Federation Law On State Duties (related to the adoption of the Federal Law On Basic Guarantees of the Rights of Children in the Russian Federation (exempting from state duties cases involving protection of the rights of minors under 14 years of age heard by court).
The Law was published in Rossiiskaya Gazeta on April 16, 1999
10. On the Fundamentals of the System for Preventing Child Neglect and Underage Crime.
The Law was published in Rossiiskaya Gazeta on June 30, 1999
11. On Amendments and Additions to the Russian Federation Law On the Fundamentals of Russian Federation Legislation on Culture (children under the age of 18 may visit museums free of charge once a month).
The Law was published in Rossiiskaya Gazeta on July 2, 1999
12. On Amendments and Additions to the Federal Law On Social Protection for the Disabled in the Russian Federation and the Russian Federation Law On State Pensions in the Russian Federation (the category of minor invalid was extended until 18 years of age).
The Law was published in the Collection of Laws of the Russian Federation No, 29 on July 19, 1999

1. On Amendments to the Federal Law On State Subsidies to Parents (a 70-day pregnancy and pre-natal leave [84 days in case of multiple births], a 70-day post-natal leave [86 days in case of complicated birth and 110 days in case of multiple births]).

1. On Amendments to the Code of the RSFSR on Administrative Infringements (a fine equivalent to 50-100 minimum monthly wages is applied for violations of the procedure or terms or inaccurate reporting of data pertaining to minors; a fine equivalent to 50-80 minimum monthly wages is applied for illicit or intermediary activities and equivalent to 80-100 minimum monthly wages in the case of officials).

The Law was published in the Collection of Laws of the Russian Federation No. 26 on June 29, 1998
2. On Amendments and Additions to the Civil Procedural Code of the RSFSR (lists the documents needed for adoption, the requirements of the guardianship agency, specifics for adoption cases).
The Law was published in the Collection of Laws of the Russian Federation No. 35 on August 26, 1996
3. On Amendments to the Russian Federation Law On State Duties (applications for adoption submitted by prospective adopters are exempted from state duties).
The Law was published in the Collection of Laws of the Russian Federation No. 35 on August 26, 1996
4. On Amendments and Additions to the Civil Procedural Code of the RSFSR (Russian citizens permanently residing abroad, foreign citizens and stateless persons apply for adoption with the court at the prospective adoptee’s domicile).
The Law was published in the Collection of Laws of the Russian Federation No. 26 on June 29, 1998
5. On Amendments and Additions to the Family Code of the Russian Federation (adoption is a priority form of care for children left without parental guidance; intermediary activity is unacceptable).
The Law was published in the Collection of Laws of the Russian Federation No. 26 on June 29, 1998

1. On Amendments and Additions to the Russian Federation Law On the Status of Heroes of the Soviet Union, Heroes of the Russian Federation and Full Holders of the Order of Glory (on the allocation of housing maintenance benefits and other benefits to the surviving spouse and the parents of Heroes and full holders of the Order of Glory).
The Law was published in the Collection of Laws of the Russian Federation No. 32 on August 5, 1996

1. On Amendments and Additions to the Russian Federation Law On Social Protection of Russian Victims of Radiation Following the 1957 Accident at the Mayak Production Association and Spill of Radioactive Waste into the Techa River (the benefits are provided to evacuees [displaced persons] and first- and second-generation children).
The Law was published in the Collection of Laws of the Russian Federation No. 32 on August 5, 1996

2. On Social Protection of RussianVictims of Radiation Following 1957 Accident at the Mayak Production Association and Spill of Radioactive Waste into the Techa River (new wording of the law).
The Law was published in Rossiiskaya Gazeta on December 2, 1998
3. On Amendments and Additions to the Russian Federation Law On Social Protection of Victims of Radiation Following the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant Disaster (children staying in the resident zone and entitled to be moved elsewhere before April 1, 1987 receive monthly compensation of 40% of the minimum monthly wage, while those born in a zone with a special socio-economic status receive 60% of the minimum monthly wage).
The Law was published in the Collection of Laws of the Russian Federation No. 51 on December 16, 1996
4. On Amendments to Article 14 of the Russian Federation Law On Social Protection of Victims of Radiation Following the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant Disaster (customs and tax breaks are brought into line with existing legislation).
The Law was published in Rossiiskaya Gazeta on April 20, 1999
5. On Amendments to Part III of the Russian Federation Law On Social Protection of Victims of Radiation Following the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant Disaster (restoring the full volume of benefits and compensation to citizens evacuated from the contaninated zones who later returned there).
The Law was published in Rossiiskaya Gazeta on July 7, 1999

The Law was published in the Collection of Laws of the Russian Federation No. 26 on June 29, 1998
2. On Narcotic Substances and Psychotropic Substances.
The Law was published in the Collection of Laws of the Russian Federation No. 2 on January 12, 1998
3. On Amendments to the Federal Law On the Prevention of the Proliferation in the Russian Federation of the Disease Caused by the Immuno-Deficit Virus (HIV- Infection) (staffers of diplomatic missions and consular offices and members of their families do not need to present certificates indicating that they do not have HIV, when they receive entry visas).
The Law was published in the Collection of Laws of the Russian Federation No. 34 on August 19, 1996
4. On Amendments to the Federal Law On the Prevention of the Proliferation in the Russian Federation of the Disease Caused by the Immuno-Deficit Virus (HIV- Infection) (medics infected by HIV in line of duty receive lump-sum subsidies: 1st degree invalids, 250 minimum wages; 2nd degree invalids, 200 minimum wages; 3rd degree invalids, 150 minimum wages; non-invalids, 100 wages; family of each diseased medic receives 300 minimum wages).
The Law was published in Rossiiskaya Gazeta on January 27, 1997
5. On the Immunization of Infectious Deseases.
The Law was published in Rossiiskaya Gazeta on September 22, 1998

The Law was published in the Collection of Laws of the Russian Federation No. 35 on August 26, 19962. On State Regulation of Genetic Engineering.
The Law was published in the Collection of Laws of the Russian Federation No. 28 on July 8, 1996
3. On Amendments and Additions to the Federal Law On Science and State Scientific and Technical Policy (authorises research organizations to let property with the agreement of the Government at prices not below those which have developed in a region; academies of sciences accorded state status are identified).
The Law was published in the Collection of Laws of the Russian Federation No. 30 on July 27, 1998
4. On Science and State Scientific and Technical Policy.
The Laws was published in the Collection of Laws of the Russian Federation No. 35 on August 26, 1996
5. On Amendments and Additions to the Federal Law of the Russian Federation On Science and State Scientific and Technical Policy (stipulates that federal executive authorities, commercial organizations and the state authorities of the Russian Federation’s constituent subjects may form extra-budgetary funds to finance research and development).
The Law was published in Rossiiskaya Gazeta on December 23, 1998
6. On Status of ‘Science City’ in the Russian Federation.
The Law was published in Rossiiskaya Gazeta on April 14, 1999
7. On Amendments and Additions to the Federal Law On Retaining the Status of State and Municipal Educational Establishments and a Moratorium on Their Privatization (the intial three-year moratorium is made indefinite).
The Law was published in Rossiiskaya Gazeta on April 14, 1999

1. On the Museum Fund of the Russian Federation and Museums in the Russian Federation.
The Law was published in the Collection of Laws of the Russian Federation No. 22 on May 27, 1996

1. On Amendment to Article 16 of the Russian Federation Law On State Guarantees and Compensations to Workers in and Residents of the Extreme North and Other Similar Areas (a 70-day pre-natal leave [84 days in case of multiple births], a 70-day post-natal leave [86 days in case of complicated birth, 110 days in case of multiple births with allowance for district ration]).

1. On Marital Status (marriage registry offices, procedure for registering births, marriages and divorces, adoption, establishing paternity, change of name and death).

The Law was published in the Collection of Laws of the Russian Federation No. 42 on October 20, 1997
3. On Amendments and Additions to the Family Code of the Russian Federation (pursuant to the adoption of the Federal Law On Marital Status).
The Law was published in the Collection of Laws of the Russian Federation No. 46 on November 17, 1997

1. On Additions to the Federal Law On the Federal Budget for 1996 (the remainder of funds after the summer health-protection campaign of 1996 are allocated to the financing of resort treatment and recreation of children and teenagers until the end of the year).

The Law was published in the Collection of Laws of the Russian Federation No. 52 On December 23, 1996
2. On Amendments and Additions to Paragraph 2 of Article 855 of Part 2 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (allocations to the wage fund, the Pension Fund, the Social Insurance Fund and the State Employment Fund are made as third-order payments).
The Law was published in the Collection of Laws of the Russian Federation No. 34 on August 19, 1996
3. On Amendments and Additions to Paragraph 2 of Article 855 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (allocations to compulsory medical insurance funds are done in third order).
The Law was published in the Collection of Laws of the Russian Federation No. 43 on October 27, 1997
4. On Tariffs of Insurance Contributions to the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation, the Social Insurance Fund of the Russian Federation, the State Employment Fund of the Russian Federation and Compulsory Medical Insurance Funds for 1997 (tariffs of insurance contributions to the Pension Fund: employers 28%, agricultural enterprises 20.6%, individual entrepreneurs 28%, communities of the indigenous populations of the north 20.6%, lawyers 285, individuals 1%; to the Social Insurance Fund 5.4%; to the State Employment Fund 1.5%; to compulsory medical insurance funds 3.6%, including 0.2% to the Federal Compulsory Medical Insurance Fund).
The Law was published in Rossiiskaya Gazeta on February 11, 1997
5. On Tariffs of Insurance Contributions to the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation, the Social Insurance Fund of the Russian Federation, the State Employment Fund of the Russian Federation and Compulsory Medical Insurance Funds for 1998 (the 1997 tariffs, procedure, payment terms and basis for exemptions remain unchanged).
The Law was published in Rossiiskaya Gazeta on November 14, 1998
6. On Amendments and Additions to the Regulations on the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation (Russia), Procedure Governing Insurance Payments By Employers and Citizens to the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation (Russia) and the RSFSR Law On State Pensions in the RSFSR (introduces the amendments required for the transition to individual [personified] accounting).
The Law was published in the Collection of Laws of the Russian Federation No. 19 on May 12, 1997
7. On Amendments and Additions to the Federal Law On Burial and Undertaking (redistributes expenditures between the federal extra-budgetary social funds and the budgets of the Russian Federation’s constituent members).
The Law was published in the Collection of Laws of the Russian Federation No. 26 on June 30, 1997
8. On Tariffs of Insurance Contributions to the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation, the Social Insurance Fund of the Russian Federation, the State Employment Fund of the Russian Federation and Compulsory Medical Insurance Funds for 1999 (tariffs of insurance contributions to the Pension Fund: employers 28%, agricultural enterprises 20.6%, individual entrepreneurs 20.6%, communities of the indigenous population of the North 20.6%, lawyers 20.6%, private individuals 1%; to the Social Insurance Fund 5.4%; to the State Employment Fund 1.5%; to compulsory medical insurance funds 3.6%, including 0.2% to the Federal Compulsory Medical Insurance Fund).
The Law was published in Rossiiskaya Gazeta on January 6, 1999
9. On Amendments and Additions to the Federal Law On Tariffs of Insurance Contributions to the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation, the Social Insurance Fund of the Russian Federation, the State Employment Fund of the Russian Federation and Compulsory Medical Insurance Funds for 1998 (the tariffs of insurance contributions to the Pension Fund for individual entrepreneurs, foreign citizens, private investigators, notaries engaged in private enterprise, private auditors, lawyers, farmsteads, tribal and family communities of the small peoples of the North engaged in traditional handicrafts, are reduced from 28% to 20.6%).
The Law was published in Rossiiskaya Gazeta on April 6, 1999

1. On Ratifying the 1947 Convention on Labour Inspection and the 1995 Protocol to the 1947 Convention on Labour Inspection, the 1978 Convention on the Settlement of Labour Issues and the 1981 Convention on Labour Safety and Hygiene and the Production Sphere (adopted by the General Conference of the International Labour Organization in Geneva).

5. On Ratifying the Consular Convention Between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Bulgaria.
The Law was published in Rossiiskaya Gazeta on December 18, 1996
6. On Ratifying the Treaty Between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan on Guarantees of Pension Rights for the Residents of the City of Baikonur of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
The Law was published in Rossiiskaya Gazeta on April 16, 1999
7. On Ratifying the European Convention on Academic Recognition of University Qualifications.
The Law was published in Rossiiskaya Gazeta on September 16, 1999
8. On Ratifying the European Convention on the Equivalent Duration of University Education.
The Law was published in Rossiiskaya Gazeta on September 16, 1999
9. On Ratifying the European Convention on Equivalent Degrees Providing Access to Universities and the Protocol Hereto.