This article was downloaded by: [Aston University] On: 29 January 2014, At: 09:59 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Post-Communist Economies Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cpce20 Regional Inequality and Branch Employment in Russia Between 1990 and 1995 Michael Paul Sacks Published online: 19 Aug 2010. To cite this article: Michael Paul Sacks (1999) Regional Inequality and Branch Employment in Russia Between 1990 and 1995, Post-Communist Economies, 11:2, 149-159, DOI: 10.1080/14631379995959 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14631379995959 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access
Transcript
This article was downloaded by: [Aston University]On: 29 January 2014, At: 09:59Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK
Post-Communist EconomiesPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cpce20
Regional Inequality andBranch Employment in RussiaBetween 1990 and 1995Michael Paul SacksPublished online: 19 Aug 2010.
To cite this article: Michael Paul Sacks (1999) Regional Inequality and BranchEmployment in Russia Between 1990 and 1995, Post-Communist Economies, 11:2,149-159, DOI: 10.1080/14631379995959
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14631379995959
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access
Regional Inequality and Branch Employment in Russia
Between 1990 and 1995
MICHAEL PAUL SACKS
Abstract
This article is based on 1990 ± 95 data on the number of workers in 14 branches of
the economy for most of Russia’ s regional divisions. This was a period during which
the total labour force shrank substantially, but change was clearly uneven across
branches. Branches that grew were likely to show an increase in the concentration
of workers in a limited number of regions, that is, growing regional inequality. A
closer look at the important area of credit, ® nance and insurance revealed the
extremely favourable position of Moscow and St Petersburg. Limited data on gender
differences suggest that, as in the past, men appear to bene® t more from change than
do women.
During the 1990s Russia experienced very dramatic change associated with the
dissolution of the former Soviet Union and the rapid movement toward a market
economy and privatisation. The bene® ts and losses associated with the change were
spread unevenly. This article explores evidence of regional disparities in economic
change as manifested by broad shifts in the labour force over the period from 1990
to 1995 and points to ways in which men and women may have contributed
differently to this regional inequality.
Entering the Post-Soviet Era
Political change came quickly at the beginning of the decade. Under El’ tsin’ s
leadership, as the new chairman of the presidium of the republic Supreme Soviet,
Russia declared its sovereignty in June 1990. The failed coup in August 1991, aimed
partly at stopping the course of economic reform, strengthened El’ tsin’ s position and
led to a policy of `radical political and social transformation’ . The Communist Party
was banned and its property con® scated. `The new liberal leadership promised
speedy marketisation and privatisation of the means of production. The new radical
leadership under El’ tsin did not negotiate with the deposed communist elite, they
Professo r Michael Paul Sacks, Department of Sociology , Trinity College, 300 Summit Street,Hartford , Connecticut 06106-3100 , USA. This is a revised version of a paper presented at the94th Annual Meeting of the Associatio n of American Geograph ers, 25±29 March 1998 , Boston,Massachuse tts. The autho r would like to express his apprecia tion to Carol Clark for very usefu lcomments on an earlier draft.
1463-1377/99/020149-11 Ó 1999 Centre for Research into Post-Communist Economies
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ast
on U
nive
rsity
] at
09:
59 2
9 Ja
nuar
y 20
14
150 Michael Paul Sacks
destroyed it’ (Lane, 1996, p. 131). Gorbachev’ s resignation came on 25 December
1991; the USSR of® cially ceased to exist on 31 December.
Between 1992 and 1995 very signi ® cant privatisation took place. `The result was
that about two-thirds of the labour force was by late 1994 of ® cially employed outside
the state sector, on which, as recently as two years before, theyÐ as well as their
parents and, largely, their grandparentsÐ had been totally dependent’ (Connor, 1996,
p. 146). The change was of an entirely different dimension from the tentative reform
in this direction under Gorbachev that affected only small-scale enterprises, rarely
located outside Moscow and St Petersburg (Connor, 1996, p. 13). Large factories and
enterprises began to be privatised by late 1992 through a variety of programmes of
ownership transfer. Economic problems worsened in part because most of the
transfers did not bring increased cash resources for the ® rms. Connor has noted the
irony that clearing a space for entirely new economic institutions would probably
have required precisely what reformers sought to reverse: strong state intervention
(Connor , 1996, p. 148): `Yesterday’ s state enterprises, now joint-stock companies,
were largely run by insiders. Outside shareholders, individual or investment funds,
had less leverage and access than they would in a mature market economy’ . Burawoy
& Krotov (1992, p. 17) have similarly argued that there has been a `withering away
of the state’ without a revolutionary change in economic institutions.
The weakening of the role of the centre has certainly provided for greater
regional political autonomy, and this in turn has had signi ® cant economic conse-
quences. Clark (1996, p. 91) notes that regional elites have shaped privatisation
programmes and their local implementation in an effort to maintain control over the
region’ s resources. Regional groups have formed lobbies to promote their economic
interests and in¯ uence policies of the centre. Becker & Hemley (1996, p. 78) contend
that, in contrast with the situation during the Soviet period, when leverage on the
centre played a more critical role, regional growth should be more closely tied
to `endowment of scarce resources’ . Thus, `the regions with booming industr ial
and housing construction are, in many cases, oblasti which were not previously
favoured’ . Le Houerou & Rutkowski (1996) found that as government ® scal respon-
sibilities shifted from the centre to regions, there had been a sharp increase in
regional differences in per capita revenue and expenditure. They provide evidence
that intergovernmental transfers have failed to reduce regional inequality.
Contemporary regional differences, however, surely stem in large part from
fundamental features of the Soviet economic system. Clark (1996, p. 91) predicts that
restructuring should bring about signi ® cant regional disparities, because
industr ial activity and employment structures in the former Soviet Union
were both relatively highly concentrated and relatively specialised at the
regional level. Hence, as a consequence of the combined effects of
anticipated sectoral shifts in GDP and the highly specialised regional
production of the Soviet period, the potential for economic growth should
differ signi ® cantly across regions (Clark, 1996, p. 91).
Data
Recently published data for 14 branches of the economy make it possible to measure
the unevenness of regional change. The data are less precise than information on
occupations, as the same occupations can appear across many different branches
(Sacks, 1986, pp. 98±99). Some change over time can result from a reclassi® cation
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ast
on U
nive
rsity
] at
09:
59 2
9 Ja
nuar
y 20
14
Regional Inequality and Employment in Russia 151
of workers. Privatisation is likely to have resulted, for example, in some service
sector workers previously counted in the industr ial branch of the economy now being
counted in trade or housing or other branches. A virtue of the data set, however, is
that it is available for detailed regions and for all years between 1990 and 1995.
The Russian Federation is divided into 89 regions1
grouped into nine divisions
plus Kaliningrad oblast’ . There were no data for branch employment for nine of the
10 autonomous okruga , although in most cases the employed populat ion of the
autonomous okrug was included among those in the respective krai or oblast’ of
which the autonomous okrug was a constituent part.2
The now separate Chechen and
Ingush republics were combined, reducing the number to 79. Selecting only those
regions for which data were available for all years between 1990 and 1995 further
reduced the number to 72.3 These 72 regions accurately re¯ ect the situation in
Russia, as the 7 omitted regions accounted for less than 2% of the country’ s total
labour force.
More problematic, however, is the fact that the total employed for Russia was
greater that the sum of the total employed in the constituent regional divisions.4 The
discrepancy appears to be attributable to an undercount in the number of workers in
agriculture distributed across regional divisions. Agriculture was the only one of the
14 branches where the sum of the ® gures for the regional divisions (plus Kaliningrad
oblast’ ) was lower than the ® gure recorded for Russia as a whole.5
In 1990 11% of
agricultural workers were missing; this grew each year to reach 19% by 1995. In
other words, information on the regional location of nearly one in ® ve agricultural
workers was missing by 1995. These missing agricultural workers, however,
amounted to only 1.4% of Russia’ s total labour force in 1990 and 2.8% in 1995. It
could have been that these agricultural workers were migrants and were not counted
in any single region, but there was neither acknowledgement of the discrepancy nor
explanation for it in the statistical publications.
In 1990 there were 8.6 million employed in agriculture in the selected 72 regions
of Russia. This rose to 8.7 million in 1993 before falling by 1 million in 1995.
Between 1990 and 1995 the percentage of all employed who were in agriculture
grew slightly from 11.7% to 12.1%. The ® gures for Russia as a whole, by contrast,
showed 9.7 million in agriculture in both 1990 and 1995 (with a slight rise in the
intervening years); the percentage in agriculture rose from 12.9% to 14.7%. Thus,
regional comparisons of agriculture may not be as accurate as they are for other
branches of the economy.
A Change in the Labour Force and Regional Variation
Between 1990 and 1995 Russia’ s labour force declined from 75.3 million to 66.4
million, a decrease of 11.8%. This compared with a 13.7% decrease (from 73.8 to
63.7 million) in the 72 selected regions. The difference in the percentage declines can
largely be attributed to the discrepancy in the count of agricultural workers. This
section uses the data from the 72 regions to show the interconnection between the
change over time in the number of workers by branch of the total economy and the
change in the way branch workers were distributed across Russia’ s regions. In other
words, how did growth or decline in a branch in¯ uence the regional concentration of
branch workers?
The ® rst three columns of Table 1 show the distribution of the employed
population across the 14 branches of the economy at three points in time: 1990, 1992
and 1995. The branches were sorted by the change in the number working in the
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ast
on U
nive
rsity
] at
09:
59 2
9 Ja
nuar
y 20
14
152 Michael Paul Sacks
branch between 1990 and 1995 (column 4). Most signi ® cant were the declines in
industry (down 5.7 million) and construction (down 2.8 million) . Between 1990 and
1992 the two branches combined fell from 43% to 41% of the labour force and were
down to 36% by 1995. Change overall, as the discussion above suggests, was far
more rapid after 1992. The ® rst four branches, all in the service sector, showed the
largest increases in their share of the labour force (column 5). General business was
not even listed as a branch until 1992.
The coef® cient of variation is a common measure of dispersion and is used here
for each branch. The measure is simply the standard deviation divided by the mean
and thus permits comparison across branches where the average numbers of workers
differ substantially (Silver, 1974; Le Houerou & Rutkowski, 1996) . Columns 7 to 9
show the coef® cients by branch for 1990, 1992 and 1995. Column 11 shows that
between 1990 and 1995 the coef® cients increased in nine of the 14 branches as well
as for the labour force as a whole.
There is another measure of change that is also useful here: the index of
dissimilarity. Change in the coef® cient of variation measures the degree to which
branch workers have become more or less concentrated in a limited number of
regions; the index of dissimilarity shows simply the extent of change in the way
branch workers were distributed across regions when comparing two points in time.
The two measures need not be related. For example, there can be a large shift of
branch workers across regions without any change in overall dispersion; more
concentration of branch workers in a few regions could be associated with a
relatively large change or with a small change over time in the regions where branch
workers were found. The measure of dissimilarity in Table 1 (column 12) can be
interpreted as the propor tion of workers in the particular branch in 1995 that would
have to move to another region if the workers were to be distributed exactly as they
had been in 1990 (or 1992 in the case of general business).6
The direction of change was unmistakable. First, the more change between 1990
and 1995 in the regional location of branch workers, the greater the dispersion of
workers across regions. The index of dissimilarity by branch (column 12) showed a
0.98 correlation with branch increases in the coef® cient of variation (column 11).
Second, increased overall labour force concentration in a branch was directly
associated with greater regional dispersion of the workers in that branch. Over the
period from 1990 to 1995 this was shown by a 0.49 correlation (0.55 over the period
1992±95) between increase in the coef® cient of variation (column 11) and column 6,
change in the propor tion of the labour force concentrated in the branch (expressed
as a percentage increase or decrease over the 1995 ® gure). Put simply, shifts over
time in the geographical and branch location of the labour force were increasing
regional differences.
Credit, Finance and Insurance
A closer look at credit, ® nance and insurance (line two of Table 1) shows the regions
that have bene® ted most from the change. What makes this branch particularly
worthy of consideration is the fact that between 1990 and 1995 the coef® cient of
variation increased sharply and that the branch showed a large increase (second
highest) in the number of workers (up 409 000).
Table 2 shows the 15 regions that contained the largest numbers of workers in
credit, ® nance and insurance in 1995. Fourteen of these regions were also among
those with the largest gain in workers in the branch between 1990 and 1995.7
Data
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ast
on U
nive
rsity
] at
09:
59 2
9 Ja
nuar
y 20
14
Regional Inequality and Employment in Russia 153
Ta
ble
1.
Dis
trib
uti
on
acro
ssbra
nch
es
of
the
eco
nom
yfo
rth
e72
reg
ions
an
dm
easu
res
of
ch
an
ge
an
dv
ari
abil
ity
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10
)(1
1)
(12)
Co
ef®
cie
nt
Ind
ex
of
Dis
trib
uti
on
(%)
Ch
ang
eC
han
ge
inD
istr
ibuti
on
of
Vari
ati
on
(V)
Chan
ge
inV
dis
sem
ilari
ty
(in
000
s)co
mp
arin
g
Bra
nch
of
the
eco
no
my
19
90
199
21
99
51
99
0±
95
199
2±
95
**
199
0±
95
**
*19
90
19
92
199
51
99
2±
95
19
90±
95
19
90
wit
h19
95
Tra
de,
pu
bli
cca
teri
ng
,sa
les
7.9
08
.00
10.3
67
72
.32
9%
31%
0.8
50
.85
1.1
60
.30
0.3
117
Cre
dit
,®
nan
ce,
insu
rance
0.5
40
.70
1.2
74
09
.38
2%
13
4%
0.7
30
.77
1.4
20
.65
0.6
926
Genera
lbu
sin
ess*
0.0
00
.30
0.6
23
96
.111
0%
11
0%
2.3
85
.50
3.1
23
.12
86
Adm
inis
trati
on
2.4
32
.14
3.1
01
80
.24
5%
27%
1.0
21
.06
0.8
12
0.2
52
0.2
116
Heal
th,
ph
ysi
cal
trai
nin
g,
socia
lse
curi
ty5
.70
5.9
66.8
71
71
.11
5%
21%
0.8
50
.80
0.8
10
.02
20
.04
7
Fo
rest
ry0
.32
0.3
30.4
016
.32
1%
24%
0.6
30
.62
0.6
20
.00
20
.02
14
Info
rmati
on
and
com
pu
tin
gse
rvic
es0
.25
0.1
70.1
22
106
.22
29
%2
52%
2.0
41
.86
3.1
01
.23
1.0
638
Hou
sin
g,
ev
eryd
ay
serv
ices
4.3
34
.23
4.6
12
258
.29
%6%
0.8
60
.80
0.8
60
.05
0.0
08
Tra
nsp
ort
and
com
mu
nic
atio
ns
7.8
37
.95
8.1
52
586
.13
%4%
0.8
10
.79
0.8
40
.05
0.0
38
Oth
er
bra
nch
es2
.64
2.5
62.1
42
588
.02
17
%2
19%
1.1
50
.89
1.4
40
.54
0.2
926
Agri
cult
ure
11
.67
12
.41
12.1
32
885
.72
2%
4%
0.7
30
.74
0.7
70
.03
0.0
49
Ed
ucat
ion
,art
s,sc
ien
ce13
.50
13
.89
13.9
52
10
79
.30
%3%
1.3
11
.24
1.1
42
0.1
02
0.1
79
Co
nst
ruct
ion
12
.13
11
.15
9.6
32
28
24
.92
14
%2
21%
0.8
20
.86
1.1
10
.25
0.2
920
Indu
stry
30
.74
30
.22
26.6
52
57
16
.82
12
%2
13%
0.7
90
.77
0.8
00
.03
0.0
17
To
tal
emplo
yed
100
.00
10
0.0
010
0.0
02
10
099
.90.7
90
.77
0.8
50
.09
0.0
75
So
urc
e:
Go
sko
mst
at
Ross
ii,
Tru
di
Za
nyato
st’
vR
oss
ii(M
osc
ow
,1
99
6),
pp.
20
,2
28
±3
16
.
*D
ata
for
the
bra
nch
of
genera
lbu
sin
ess
are
mis
sin
gfo
r1
99
0.
Co
mp
aris
on
sof
199
2and
19
95
are
sub
stit
ute
dfo
rcom
pari
son
sof
199
0and
19
95
.
**T
he
chang
ebetw
een
199
2(c
olu
mn
2)
an
d19
95
(co
lum
n3
)ex
pre
ssed
asa
perc
enta
ge
of
the
®g
ure
in19
92
.
**
*T
he
chang
ebetw
een
199
0(c
olu
mn
1)
an
d19
95
(co
lum
n3
)ex
pre
ssed
asa
perc
enta
ge
of
the
®g
ure
in19
90
.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ast
on U
nive
rsity
] at
09:
59 2
9 Ja
nuar
y 20
14
154 Michael Paul Sacks
Table 2. Fifteen regions with the largest number in credit, ® nance and insurance in
1995
Credit, ® nance, insurance Total employed
Number (in 000s) Index (1990 5 100) Number (in 000s) Index (1990 5 100) Rank
in
Region 1990 1992 1995 1990 1992 1995 1995
Moscow City 28.5 127 466 5196.6 91 100 1
St Petersburg city 8.9 147 365 2653.0 90 88 3
Sverdlovsk oblast’ 11.3 123 231 2423.6 92 84 4
Krasnodar krai 13.3 135 196 2297.9 90 87 5
Tyumen’ oblast’ 10.7 117 226 1769.4 91 96 9
Moscow oblast’ 12.2 144 191 2926.5 93 83 2
Samara oblast’ 8.7 131 259 1690.3 97 92 11
Rostov oblast’ 12.3 116 166 2256.4 98 84 6
Krasnoyarsk krai 11.1 110 175 1880.6 83 74 13
Bashkortostan 10.2 122 179 1953.7 97 89 8
Nizhnegorod oblast’ 9.5 121 182 1935.2 96 91 7
Tatarstan 9.4 120 183 1894.3 97 89 10
Kemerovo oblast’ 9.0 114 173 1611.6 96 84 15
Novosibirsk oblast’ 7.1 130 210 1414.5 96 85 18
Perm’ oblast’ 7.9 120 184 1575.0 96 87 14
15 regions above 170.1 125 250 33 478.6 93 89
57 other regions 229.6 118 167 40 377.2 95 84
All 72 regions 399.7 121 202 73 855.8 94 86
42.6% 44.0% 52.6% 45.3% 44.8% 46.6%15 as a % of all 72
Source: as Table 1.
for the 72 regions show that the number of workers in credit, ® nance and insurance
in 1990 was very closely correlated (r 5 0.83) with the increase in the number in the
next ® ve years. The growth in the branch was also highly correlated with the total
labour force size in both 1990 (r 5 0.80) and 1995 (r 5 0.85). Thus, large regions
were clearly favoured in this important emerging sector of the economy. (Change in
the total labour force of a region between 1990 and 1995, however, was unrelated to
change in the number in this branch [r 5 2 0.025]) .
The regions in Table 2 are sorted by size in 1995. The rank order was different
in 1990 (see column 1), but the only substitute would have been Chelyabinsk oblast’
instead of Perm’ oblast’ . The most signi ® cant change in ranking was the movement
of St Petersburg from thirteenth place in 1990 to second place in 1995. The index
® gures in columns 2 and 3 show again that real growth occurred primarily after
1992.
To put the branch growth in perspective, the right half of Table 2 contains ® gures
for the total employed population in each of the regions. Moscow’ s work force
increased by two-tenths of a percent between 1990 and 1995. Moscow was the only
region among all 72 that witnessed growth in its labour force. The 15 regions ranked
among the top 18 in size of the total labour force in 1995 (see the last column).
The contrast between these 15 regions and the remainder of Russia is shown by
® gures in the bottom lines of Table 2. Credit, ® nance and insurance increased
2.5-fold in the 15 regions, compared with only 1.6-fold in the remaining 57 regions.
Consequently, the percentage of all those employed in credit, ® nance and insurance
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ast
on U
nive
rsity
] at
09:
59 2
9 Ja
nuar
y 20
14
Regional Inequality and Employment in Russia 155
who were located in the 15 regions increased by 10 points to 53% between 1990 and
1995. The labour force as a whole, by contrast, became only slightly more concen-
trated in these regions.
Aggregating the 15 regions understates the narrowness of change. By 1995 the
top three regions in size of total labour force were Moscow, Moscow oblast’ (minus
the city of Moscow) and St Petersburg, in that order. These three regions alone
clearly accounted for a great deal of the increase in regional inequality. Those
employed in credit, ® nance and insurance who resided in the three regions combined
rose from one-eighth (12.4%) in 1990 to nearly one-quarter (23.3%) by 1995.
Other branches also show the importance of these three regions. The very high
coef® cient of variation for general business can be explained by the fact that the
three regions were home to one-third of those employed in this branch in 1992; a
® gure which rose to 72% by 1995. Information and computing services had the third
largest increase in the coef® cient of variation, and here again the three regions were
important. For reasons which are not clear, this seemingly important branch actually
showed a sharp decline in size between 1990 and 1995. Over the same period there
was an increase from 30% to 44% of all information and computing service workers
located in the three regions.
Gender and Change
Finally, there is an important gender dimension to the change that has taken place,
although the data permit only a very partial examination of this. Past research on the
former Soviet republics showed greater regional variation in the male labour force
than among females, and that men and women did not bene® t equally from economic
change (Sacks, 1982) . These trends are also likely to exist across Russia’ s regions.
During the 1990s gender differences have been enhanced in Russia by the
rejection of the more egalitarian ideology of the Soviet period and the curtailment
and increased cost of many social services. Women are also having to cope with
problems that have carried over from the Soviet period. State priorities had left an
atrophied service sector and consequently an enormous burden of domestic labour
that women continue to shoulder. Women were squeezed out of key industr ial areas
that afforded greater prestige, higher pay and greater opportunity for advancement.
High-achieving women often ended up in white-collar sectors deeply imbedded in
the state bureaucracy and thus most imbued with the defects of the systemÐ sti¯ ed
personal initiative and little room for exercising or building upon professional
training. `Working women’ , according to a Russian source, `were the ª most social-
istº element of Soviet society’ (Babaeva, 1996, p. 25).
For many women this past was a serious liability in a market economy. In the
least ef® cient sectors of state employment (health, education, culture, scienti® c
institutions as well as government planning), areas ® rst to be cut as the economic
crisis worsened, the majority of workers were women (Babaeva, 1996, p. 45).
Rzhanitsina & Sergeeva (1995, p. 57) note that industr ies that employ a large
propor tion of women have tended to decline sharply, while those branches of
industry with a preponderance of men have either grown or remained stable.
Discrimination against women certainly existed in the past, but today it can be
open and explicit (Bridger, Kay & Pinnick, 1996, p. 80):
A casual glance at the `situation vacant’ columns and specialist jobs
supplements con® rms the proposition that there is marked preference for
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ast
on U
nive
rsity
] at
09:
59 2
9 Ja
nuar
y 20
14
156 Michael Paul Sacks
men on the part of employers in the new Russian labour market. Nearly all
the most prestigious professional jobs advertised baldly state that they are
looking for male applicants only. In addition, many vacancies for skilled
manual workers, such as joiners, lathe-operators, ® tters and technicians
have similar men-only speci® cations. Where women are designated as
preferred applicants it is usually for secretarial jobs and other relatively
low-level of ® ce staff.
The regional data on the numbers by branch of the economy show no breakdown by
gender. Changes for men and women are available for Russia as a whole, although
the branches are somewhat different from those used above (see Table 3). Particu-
larly important was the overall difference in the way economic decline has affected
men and women. Between 1990 and 1995 the number of employed females fell by
19%, compared with a 5% decline for men.
More importantly, women who remained employed shifted their distribution
across branches in a way that was very different from men. Industry shrank more
than any other branch, but this was largely due to women leaving (see columns 5±7).
Women comprised three-quarters of the 5.6 million fall in the number of industr ial
workers. Industry had been nearly half female in 1990, but the percentage female fell
by nearly 12 points by 1995. The largest male decline was from construction,
although the out¯ ow of women was suf ® cient to reduce females among construction
workers from 27% to 23%.
The largest increase for males was in trade, public catering and sales. This was
the branch which had the greatest increase in the total number of workers. While
growing by 1.3 million men, however, it shrank by half a million women. As a
consequence, the percentage female fell by 17 points between 1990 and 1995, more
than any other branch.
Credit, ® nance and insurance was the area with the next highest growth. Though
the numerical growth of females exceeded that of males, males were starting at a far
lower number. Males showed a 5-fold increase, compared with slightly more than a
doubling of females. The result was that the percentage female fell by 15 points.
The second largest growth of females was in education, culture and artsÐ an area
where there was a net male loss. The only other area with a substantial female net
gain was in health, physical training and social security. It is signi ® cant that these
two are branches with a falling coef® cient of variation for the 72 regions. While the
number of women did grow in credit, ® nance and insurance, where the coef® cient of
variation increased, in this branch males showed a propor tionately far greater
increase.
Unfortunately data on the gender composition are missing for the two categories
with the largest growth in coef® cient of variation: general business and information
and computing services. However, other sources suggest that women have had very
low representation among the new entrepreneurs (Babaeva, 1996, Chapter 3; Bruno,
1997; Bridger, Kay & Pinnick, 1996, Chapter 6).
Overall, women are far more likely than men to be displaced from the labour
force and men appear to be shifting much more rapidly than women into newly
expanding branches. Thus, regional variation is likely to be far more attributable to
the employment patterns of men than of women.
Conclusion
Although there is only limited information provided by the very broad branch
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ast
on U
nive
rsity
] at
09:
59 2
9 Ja
nuar
y 20
14
Regional Inequality and Employment in Russia 157
Ta
ble
3.
Gen
der
co
mpo
siti
on
by
bra
nch
of
the
eco
no
my
inR
uss
ia,
19
90
±19
95
Nu
mber
(in
00
0s)
Men
Wom
enC
hang
e1
99
0±9
5P
ercen
tag
efe
mal
e
Bra
nch
of
the
econ
om
y1
99
01
99
519
90
19
95
Mal
es
Fem
ales
Tota
l1
99
01
99
5P
oin
tch
ange
Ind
ust
ry11
86
110
38
21
09
48
68
00
21
47
92
41
48
256
27
48
.03
9.6
28
.4
Con
stru
ctio
n6
58
54
77
324
35
14
35
21
81
22
10
00
228
12
27
.02
3.1
23
.9
Ag
ricu
lture
and
fore
stry
607
96
64
338
86
33
60
56
42
526
38
39
.03
3.6
25
.4
Tra
nsp
ort
370
03
25
812
34
11
20
24
42
21
14
25
56
25
.02
5.6
0.6
Oth
erb
ran
ches
171
21
69
44
34
16
02
18
22
74
22
92
20
.28
.62
11
.6
Edu
cati
on
,cu
ltu
re,
and
arts
161
31
54
656
18
57
70
267
152
85
77
.77
8.9
1.2
Ho
usi
ng
,ev
eryd
ayse
rvic
es1
55
71
67
916
60
13
00
12
22
360
22
38
51
.64
3.6
28
.0
Sci
ence
and
scie
nti
®c
serv
ices
131
882
714
86
86
12
491
26
25
211
16
53
.05
1.0
22
.0
Tra
de,
pu
bli
cca
teri
ng,
sale
s1
17
42
50
146
95
41
78
132
72
517
81
08
0.0
62
.62
17
.4
Hea
lth,
ph
ysi
cal
trai
nin
g,
socia
lse
curi
ty72
081
835
18
36
28
98
110
20
88
3.0
81
.62
1.4
Ad
min
istr
atio
n59
679
812
10
12
15
20
25
20
76
7.0
60
.46.6
Com
mun
icati
on
s25
628
96
28
58
63
32
42
29
71
.06
7.0
24
.1
Cre
dit
,®
nan
ce,
insu
ran
ce4
020
53
62
61
516
52
53
41
89
0.0
75
.02
15
.0
Tota
lem
plo
yed
37
21
135
41
33
81
14
31
02
82
179
82
70
86
288
84
50
.64
6.7
23
.9
So
urc
e:G
osk
om
stat
Ross
ii,
Tru
di
Za
nya
tost
’v
Ro
ssii
(Mo
sco
w,
199
6),
pp.
20,
228
±31
6.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ast
on U
nive
rsity
] at
09:
59 2
9 Ja
nuar
y 20
14
158 Michael Paul Sacks
categories, the data point strongly to an association between current labour force
change and growing regional differences. Moscow and St Petersburg have been
especially favoured, but there is evidence of an economic advantage associated with
the scale of a region’ s employed populat ion. Finally, gender differences are increas-
ing. Men appear more involved in the changing sectors of the economy and,
therefore, variation across regions may be much greater among males than among
females.
Notes
1. These consis t of `21 republic s, 50 oblasti , 6 kraya (nativ e lands) , and 10 autonomous
okruga , plus two metropoli tan cities (Moscow and St Petersbur g)’ (Le Houerou &
Rutkowski, 1996 , p. 22).
2. Data were availabl e only for the Chukotk a autonomous okrug , althoug h ® gures were
missing for both 1990 and 1991.
3. The region s for which data were missing for eithe r or both 1990 and 1991 were Adygei
