Source: https://clms.hse.ru/en/publications
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 11:57:53+00:00

Document:
Gimpelson V. E., Kapeliushnikov R. Discussion Paper. IZA DP. Institute for the Study of Labor, 2017. No. 11126.
Travkin P., Sharunina A. International Journal of Training and Development. 2016. Vol. 20. No. 4. P. 262-279.
Vishnevskaya N., Lukyanova A. Economic and Labour Relations Review. 2016. Vol. 27. No. 1. P. 98-117.
In this article, we study the minimum wage setting reform in Russia that aimed to decentralise the fixing of the minimum wage and to increase the involvement of social partners into this process. The old system of minimum wage setting was based on a single nationwide minimum wage which was differentiated across regions and occupations via a cumbersome framework of coefficients. The new system is a mixture of the government-set minimum wage at the federal level and collective agreements at the regional level. We show that the system of minimum wage setting has become more flexible. The reform succeeded in raising the real value of the minimum wage and increasing earnings of low-paid workers without causing significant negative effects in terms of employment. The reform did not lead to greater regional variation of minimum wages. Nevertheless, it introduced some new imbalances: an unintended consequence of the reform was the emergence of separate regional wage sub-minima for private and public sector workers in many regions. The major challenge in coming years is to strengthen the institutions of collective bargaining, introduce evidence-based evaluation and boost the capacities of government and non-government monitoring agencies.
Kapeliushnikov R. Russian Journal of Economics. 2015. Vol. 1. No. 1. P. 81-107.
Gimpelson V. E., Kapeliushnikov R. In bk.: The Challenges for Russia's Politicized Economic System. Oxford: Routledge, 2015. Ch. 3. P. 33-58.
Oshchepkov A. Y. In bk.: AIEL Series in Labour Economics: Geographical Labor Market Imbalances. Bk. Geographical Labor Market Imbalances . Iss. AIEL Series in Labour Economics. Berlin: Springer, 2015. Ch. 4. P. 65-105.
Estimating the Public-Private Wage Gap in Russia: What Does Quantile Regression Tell Us?
Gimpelson V. E., Lukyanova A., Sharunina A. Economics/EC. WP BRP. Высшая школа экономики, 2015. No. 104/EC/2015.
The paper explores the public-private wage gap in the Russian economy along the whole wage distribution. Using RLM-HSE data set, it examines how gaps at various points of the distribution changed over time during 2000-2014 and presents decompositions of the gaps into components explained by differences in characteristics and differences in returns. The results suggest that the gap persists over time and varies along the wage distribution. During the 2000s low skilled public sector workers had smaller pay gaps than those higher skilled had. Governmental policy interventions and the economic crisis of 2008-2009 contributed to the narrowing of the gap and its partial equalization along the distribution. New set of policy changes associated with the May 2012 Presidential Decrees strengthened these tendencies but did not eliminate the gaps.
Slonimczyk F., Gimpelson V. E. Economics of Transition. 2015. Vol. 23. No. 2. P. 299-341.
Informality is a defining characteristic of labour markets in developing and transition countries. This paper analyzes patterns of mobility across different forms of formal and informal employment in Russia. Using the Russian Longitudinal Monitoring Survey household panel we estimate a dynamic multinomial logit model with individual heterogeneity and correct for the initial conditions problem. Simulations show that structural state dependence is weak and that transition rates from informal to formal employment are not lower than from non-employment. These results lend support to the integrated view of the labour market.
Gimpelson V. E., Treisman D. NBER Working Paper. National Bureau of Economic Research, 2015. No. 21174.
Since Aristotle, a vast literature has suggested that economic inequality has important political consequences. Higher inequality is thought to increase demand for government income redistribution in democracies and to discourage democratization and promote class conflict and revolution in dictatorships. Most such arguments crucially assume that ordinary people know how high inequality is, how it has been changing, and where they fit in the income distribution. Using a variety of large, cross-national surveys, we show that, in recent years, ordinary people have had little idea about such things. What they think they know is often wrong. Widespread ignorance and misperceptions of inequality emerge robustly, regardless of the data source, operationalization, and method of measurement. Moreover, we show that the perceived level of inequality—and not the actual level—correlates strongly with demand for redistribution and reported conflict between rich and poor. We suggest that most theories about political effects of inequality need to be either abandoned or reframed as theories about the effects of perceived inequality.
Numerous economic, sociological and psychological studies show that job loss leads to the major decline of social position measured by various indicators like income level, subjective wellbeing, life chances, job-search abilities. Job loss also leads to the serious downfall of subjective social status. However the connection between job loss and subjective social status dynamics remains to be insuffi ciently investigated. Thus little is actually known about the differences in perceptions of social position decline that come as a result of occupation-specifi c characteristics of previous employment. Given the considerable heterogeneity of employment itself, the effect of previous occupation membership on subjective social status dynamics in case of job loss may differ considerably. So the question occurs: for which occupational groups job loss is more painful in terms of subjective social status decline? Do unemployment transition and labour market exit differ in terms of its consequences for subjective social status decline for various occupational groups? Present study was conducted on the basis of the Russia Longitudinal Monitoring Survey – Higher School of Economics (RLMS – HSE) for 2000–2012 and focuses on the role of previous occupation engagement on the dynamics of subjective social status of the unemployed and out of labour force individuals. Empirical stage of analysis included both descriptive measures (transition probabilities matrices analysis, comparisons of occupation-specifi c subjective social status means before and after job loss, identifi cation of occupations with higher probabilities of job loss) and estimations of panel regression models with fi xed effects. Results presented clarify the social penalty of job loss for various occupations on the Russian labour market and position of occupational groups in a modern Russian society.
Капелюшников Р. И. Вопросы экономики. 2015. № 5.
Вишневская Н. Т. Мировая экономика и международные отношения. 2015. № 10. С. 62-75.
Гимпельсон В. Е., Капелюшников Р. И. Вопросы экономики. 2015. № 7. С. 87-119.
Потоки на российском рынке труда: 2000-2012 гг.
Шарунина А. В., Гимпельсон В. Е. Экономический журнал Высшей школы экономики. 2015. Т. 19. № 3. С. 313-348.
Using RLMS-HSE data set we analyze labor flows in the Russian labor market for 2000-2012. We document the high mobility rate and the transitive role played by non-participation. Division of all employed into three large groups (budgetary workers, workers in the corporate market sector, and employed in the non-corporate or informal sector) suggests that budgetary workers are low mobile compared to others, and informal workers and economically inactive individuals have higher probabilities to become unemployed than those who work formally. The paper exploits a few methodological approaches. First, we build transition matrices allowing estimate transition probabilities. Second, the Shorrocks indexes estimate intensity of mobility. Third, the dynamic multinomial logit model explores individual determinants of inter-status transitions and structural dependence from the previous labor market states. Fourth, we decompose the change in unemployment rate as the combination of incoming and outcoming flows. This procedure suggests that the decline in unemployment is explained by decrease in incoming flows while the outflows remain largely stable. Observed intensity and direction of flows fit the institutional configuration of the Russian labor market model.
Гимпельсон В. Е., Капелюшников Р. И. Журнал Новой экономической ассоциации. 2015. № 2. С. 249-254.
Воскобойников И. Б., Гимпельсон В. Е. Вопросы экономики. 2015. № 11. С. 30-61.
This study considers the influence of structutal change to aggregate labour productivity growth of the Russian economy. The term “structural change” refers to labour reallocation both between industries and between formal and informal segments within an industry. Using Russia KLEMS and official Rosstat data we decompose aggregate labour productivity growth into intra-industry (within) and between industry effects with four alternative methods of the shift share analysis. All methods provide consistent results and demonstrate that total labour reallocation has been growth enhancing though the informality expansion has had the negative effect. As our study suggests, it is caused by growing variation in productivity levels across industries.
Lukyanova A., Vishnevskaya N. IBES DISKUSSIONSBEITRAG. IBES. Universität Duisburg-Essen, 2014. No. 206.
This paper explores the perceptions of inequality and their associations with social mobility exploiting the ISSP and LITs cross-country data set. These perceptions vary across countries as well as across individuals within countries. We try to explain this variation by examining the diverse opportunities for vertical social mobility available to individuals. The main research question raised in the paper is whether our perception of income differentiation is driven by experience of past mobility and availability of the upward leading instruments. In other words, is a more socially mobile society more tolerant to income inequality than a less mobilite and segmented one? The intuitive answer seems to be an obvious "yes", but empirical evidence is still scarce.
Gimpelson V. E., Kapeliushnikov R. IZA Discussion Paper. IZA, 2014. No. 8688.
This paper discusses the structural change in the Russian employment and explores whether the evolution of employment over 2000-2012 followed the scenario of progressive upgrading in job quality or brought about the polarization of jobs in terms of their quality. Jobs are defined here as occupation-industry cells and their quality is measured through relative earnings and education levels. Using detailed micro-data from a few complementary large scale surveys, we rank all jobs according to the earnings and educational criteria and divide these distributions into 5 quintiles. At the next stage, we explore dynamic changes in job quality and socio-demographic characteristics of workers in different quintiles. The paper rejects the polarization scenario and confirms the upgrading hypothesis.
Chernina E., Markevich A., Dower P. Journal of Development Economics. 2014. No. 110. P. 191-215.
This monograph continues the series of publications on the Russian labor market prepared by the team of scholars from the Center for Labour Market Studies at the Higher School of Economics. The book provides a comprehensive analysis of various aspects of informality in the Russian labour market. It discusses a wide range of informality related issues, including its economic nature and causes, evolution and composition, measurement and policy implications. Authors question the labour market segmentation theory and the popular thesis that informal employees represent an inferior segment of the labour force that is trapped in bad jobs. Significant attention is paid to costs and benefits of going informal for workers, firms, and the society. A special focus in the book is on earnings in the formal and informal sectors, their impact on evolution of inequality and formal-informal labour mobility. A few chapters explore impact of institutions (such as taxation and minimum wage) on incidence of informal work. Implications for subjective social status and household well-being are also explored. Most of the chapters presented in the book are based on studies that use large sets of microdata and modern econometric techniques.
Гимпельсон В. Е., Монусова Г. А. Экономический журнал Высшей школы экономики. 2014. Т. 18. № 2. С. 216-248.
Гимпельсон В. Е., Капелюшников Р. И., Жихарева О. Б. Вопросы экономики. 2014. № 7.
Капелюшников Р. И. Вопросы экономики. 2014. № №3. С. 36-61.
Реформа немецкого рынка труда: особый случай или пример для подражания?
Вишневская Н. Т. Экономический журнал Высшей школы экономики. 2014. № 2. С. 249-284.
The Labour Market Reform in Germany: a Special Case or an Example to Follow? In this article we study the institutional reform of the German labour market during the period 2003-2005, the so-called Hartz reforms. The aim of this paper is threefold. First, we describe the economic and institutional context of the German labour market before the Hartz reforms in light of general trends in market economies. The falling competitiveness of the German economy, the need to increase the flexibility and dynamics of the labor market have made the ruling elite to proceed with institutional transformations. Second, we analyze the theoretical concepts that became the basis for the labour market reform and examine the changes in the main labour market institutions. Finally, we evaluate the outcomes of the institutional reforms for economic activity, employment, unemployment and labour costs. Of major interest is the question about the impact of the Hartz reforms on internal flexibility. In this work we rely on the institutional analysis. Results of the study contribute to the understanding of the mechanism of labour market transformations. At the same time its main conclusions can be used for improving the economic and social policy in the Russian Federation. We came to the following conclusions. We have found the positive impact of the changes in labour market institutions on labour market outcomes: especially on the dynamics of economic activity and employment. The Hartz reforms fundamentally modified the functioning of the German labor market and increased both flexibility and job creation capacities. However, the pattern of German de-regulatory reforms accesses mostly the margins of the labour market, i.e. ‘outsiders’, that contribute to a growing dualisation of the employment system. This dualisation trend was reinforced by dynamics in industrial relations and company employment practices where we can observe growing reliance on mechanisms of internal flexibility for the skilled core work force and increasing use of non-standard types of employment in less specifically skilled occupations.
Zudina A. A. Sociology. SOC. Высшая школа экономики, 2013. No. 24/SOC/2013.
This article addresses the elaboration of a new approach to informal employment research based on analyzing subjective social status. In spite of numerous studies conducted over the past 40 years many questions still exist in the field of informal employment research. The heterogeneous nature of activities incorporated into the concept of “informality” defines the ambiguity of its impact on the economy and society. Thus, little is actually known about the socioeconomic position of informal workers and the nature of informal employment. Is informality a kind of stratifying mechanism embedded in the social structure that changes the position of the informally employed, or not? The so-called “direct” approach based on analyzing levels of income was considered to be an inappropriate framework and thus indicated that the consequences of informal employment need to be further analyzed together with indirect – subjective – measures. The present paper discusses methodological issues and presents results concerning the subjective social position of informally employed workers in contrast to formal workers, the unemployed, and the economically inactive population. The study was carried out on the basis of a large nationally representative panel: the Russia Longitudinal Monitoring Survey of the Higher School of Economics (RLMS-HSE) for 2000-2010. The existence of three-tier informal employment in Russia is revealed with self-employment being better off than formal employment and informal wage and salary work. No significant difference between informal wage and salary work and formal employment in terms of subjective social status is found. Thereby, one can suppose that the difference between types of employment is not embedded in the social structure at all. Taken as an indirect indicator of the quality formal employment in Russia, this could point to the great weakness of labor market institutions and the idle channels of social mobility of formal employment in Russia.
Gimpelson V. E., Kapeliushnikov R. In bk.: The Oxford Handbook of the Russian Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.
Жить в тени или умереть на свету?
Гимпельсон В. Е., Капелюшников Р. И. Вопросы экономики. 2013. № 11.

References: V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V.