Access to Social Protection by Immigrants, Emigrants and Resident Nationals in the Russian Federation

This chapter discusses the general legal framework regulating Russia’s welfare system and access for national citizens, foreigners residing in the country, and national citizens residing abroad to social benefits in five policy areas: unemployment, health care, family benefits, pensions, and guaranteed minimum resources. Our analysis shows that the eligibility of Russian nationals for social benefits depends either on their employment status and contribution record (for pensions and other social insurance benefits), or their residence status (for social assistance and healthcare). The overall level of social protection of citizens residing in different parts of the country may differ substantially due to the decentralized structure of the social protection system in Russia. The rights of foreign residents to social security benefits are essentially the same as those of the nationals, as long as they are legally employed and make social security contributions. However, there are two major exceptions: pensions and unemployment benefits. Social assistance benefits provided at the regional level are typically available to all legal residents, foreigners included, with few exceptions. When deciding to permanently move abroad, Russian citizens lose their entitlement to claim social benefits from Russia, apart from acquired contributory public pensions

Патон Борис Євгенович

Патон Борис Євгенович — видатний вітчизняний учений, всесвітньо відомий спеціаліст в галузі зварювання, металознавства, металургії, спорудження відповідальних інженерних конструкцій, автор багатьох фундаментальних ре зультатів і створених на їх основі нових технологій і відповідного обладнання. У 1951 р. його обрано членом-кореспондентом, в 1958 р. — дійсним членом (академіком) Академії наук УРСР, з 1962 р. він — її президент

(Re)distribution and Growth: What is the Role of Social Protection?

Considerations of social justice, as opposed to growth, must provide the linchpin of a social protection agenda because the chronically vulnerable and poor are typically in their predicament because of institutionalised patterns of disadvantage. Furthermore, if the primary purpose of social protection programming is to transform the lives of large numbers of vulnerable people, only a radical agenda based on considerations of (re)distribution, recognition and representation will suffice, precisely because resource transfers alone (including provision of assets or jobs) will not be able to transform the terms of engagement upon which the vulnerable and poor interface with society

Background Note - UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs - (DESA)

Background Note on The Global Financial and Economic Crisis, Its Impact on Development, and How The World Should Respond

Sanitation: What's the Real Problem?

The vast number of people without sanitation raises the question why this is so. It cannot be a lack of adequate sanitation technologies as these exist for all situations from dispersed rural communities to high?density low?income urban areas. Nor cannot it be money as development banks will readily fund a well?prepared sanitation proposal. The real sanitation problem must surely lie with those developing?country governments who have shown little commitment in practice to sanitation despite international sanitation advocacy since 1980. Their lack of commitment is clearly shown in the number of ‘open defecators’ in the world today. There are fortunately some countries that have done well: Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam, for example, but they are a clear minority

How big is big enough? Toward a sustainable future by examining alternatives to the conventional economic growth paradigm

This study addresses how the sustainability crisis may be overcome by using alternatives to the conventional economic growth paradigm. Based on a literature review, the paper identifies and discusses three alternatives, namely negative, zero and positive economic growth. These alternatives are compared from a feasibility and policy perspective in relation to the transition toward sustainable development. The three alternatives are associated with very far‐reaching sets of policies that have different focal points with regard to how the paradigm shift from the conventional growth paradigm can be realized. All these alternatives, however, challenge the effectiveness of market forces. The shortcomings of the alternatives (resistance to voluntary transition with negative or zero growth, no proper consideration of the rebound effect for positive growth) hinder the transition and must be further addressed by policy‐makers in public and private sectors, as well as by civil society

How migration policies moderate the diffusion of terrorism

There is an ongoing debate among practitioners and scholars about the security consequences of transnational migration. Yet, existing work has not yet fully taken into account the policy instruments states have at their disposal to mitigate these risks, and we lack reliable evidence for the effectiveness of such measures. The following research addresses both shortcomings as we analyze whether and to what extent national migration policies affect the diffusion of terrorism via population movements. Spatial analyses report robust support for a moderating influence of states’ policies: while terrorism can travel from one country to another via larger migration populations, this only applies to target countries with extremely lax regulations and control mechanisms. This research sheds new light on the security implications of population movements, and it crucially adds to our understanding of governments’ instruments for addressing migration challenges as well as their effectiveness