The presented article is devoted to changes in the scale and qualitative characteristics of objective and subjective poverty in Russian society over the past 20 years. Based on the data of all-Russian empirical studies conducted by the Federal Research Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences in 2003, 2013 and 2023, the dynamics of the number of objectively and subjectively poor Russians, the areas of intersection of these groups, their living conditions, their perception of their situation and ideas about the future of the country are traced. The obtained results indicate a noticeable reduction in both objective poverty (by income level) and subjective poverty (by self-assessment of their financial situation) among Russians over the past 20 years, which mainly occurred in the first half of this period. The reduction in the shares of objective and subjective poverty was accompanied by their divergence. As a result, an ever smaller share of Russians find themselves in the poverty zone simultaneously in both of these dimensions, and the portraits and characteristics of these groups differ increasingly. The objectively poor differ less in their assessments of their situation and opportunities in various spheres from the population as a whole, which indicates, on the one hand, the relatively shallow nature of income poverty, and on the other, the modest standard of living of the “typical Russian”. The subjectively poor are characterised by more noticeable differences from the population as a whole, in particular, negative assessments of many spheres of their lives. A similar situation is observed with the socio-psychological well-being of representatives of these groups: although over the past 20 years it has improved both among the poor by income and among the poor by self-assessment, positive changes in the first group occurred faster. As a result, the poor by self-assessment are characterised by a higher level of pessimism and anxiety compared to other Russians. In terms of assessments of Russia's development path, both objectively and subjectively the poor differ little from other Russians, demonstrating a public consensus: the population believes in a bright future for the country, but on the condition that it follows a special path that allows for social stability. Finally, it is important to note that the subjectively poor cannot be reduced to pensioners: the data confirm that this group is heterogeneous in its composition, which determines the absence of a clear portrait and the impossibility of identifying it as a "single addressee" of socio-economic policy.

sociology, poverty, subjective poverty, income poverty, social status, social well-being, socio-economic well-being

1. Poverty and poor in modern Russia. Ed. by M. K. Gorshkov, N. E. Tikhonova. Moscow, Ves’ Mir, 2014: 304 (in Russ.). EDN: SXPYHR.
2. Belopashentseva P. V. Official and subjective poverty in Russia: the impact of 2020–2021 events. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya, 2023: 10: 78–90 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.31857/S013216250028306-9; EDN: OQNXMT.
3. Belopashentseva P. V. What does the deprivation approach say about Russian poverty? Monitoring obshhestvennogo mneniya: ekonomicheskie i socialnye peremeny, 2022: 4: 110–129 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.14515/monitoring.2022.4.2224; EDN: WUOLWD.
4. Zharomsky V. S. Building an integrated poverty measure by three poverty profiles. Narodonaselenie, 2019: 22(1): 92–105 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.24411/1561-7785-2019-00007; EDN: ICOEVN.
5. Zudina A. A. Informal employment and subjective social status: the сase of Russia. Ekonomicheskaya sotsiologiya, 2013: 14(3): 27–63 (in Russ.). EDN: RYIHPN.
6. Karabchuk T. S., Pashinova T. R., Soboleva N. E. Bednost domohozyajstv v Rossii: chto govoryat dannye RMEZ VSHE [Household poverty in Russia: what does the RLMS HSE data say]. Mir Rossii. Sociologiya. Etnologiya, 2013: 1: 155–175 (in Russ.). EDN: PVKGDT.
7. Kosova L. B. The grounds for success: the results of a comparative analysis of subjective status assessments. Vestnik obshhestvennogo mneniya. Dannye. Analiz. Diskussii,2014: 3–4(118): 118–127 (in Russ.).
8. Maleva T. M., Grishina E. E., Burdyak A. Y. Chronic poverty: what affects its level and severity? Voprosy ekonomiki, 2020: 12: 24–40 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.32609/0042-8736-2020-12-24-40; EDN: ALZPDV.
9. Ovcharova L. N. Teoretiko-metodologicheskie voprosy opredeleniya i izmereniya bednosti [Theoretical and methodological issues of definition and measurement of poverty]. SPERO. Socialnaya politika: ekspertiza, rekomendacii, obzory, 2012: 16: 15–38 (in Russ.).
10. Ovcharova L. N., Prokof'eva L. M., Toksanbaeva M. S. Bednost': al'ternativnye podhody k opredeleniyu i izmereniyu [Poverty: alternative approaches to definition and measurement]. Moscow, MC Karnegi, 1998: 281 (in Russ.).
11. Pishnyak A. I., Khalina N. V. et al. The level and the profile of persistent poverty in Russia. Zhurnal novoi ekonomicheskoi associacii, 2021: 2: 65–73 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.31737/2221-2264-2021-50-2-3; EDN: UZLIDK.
12. Slobodenyuk E. D. Factors of absolute and subjective poverty in modern Russia. Vestnik obshhestvennogo mneniya. Dannye. Analiz. Diskussii, 2016: 3-4(123): 82–92 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.24411/2070-5107-2016-00017; EDN: YKKCTZ.
13. Tikhonova N. E. Subjective stratification of Russian society model and its dynamic. Vestnik obshhestvennogo mneniya. Dannye. Analiz. Diskussii, 2018: 1-2(126): 17–29 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.24411/2070-5107-2018-00001; EDN: MFFBOH.
14. Tikhonova N. E., Slobodenyuk E. D. Poverty of Russian professionals: scale, causes, trends. Mir Rossii. Sociologiya. Etnologiya, 2022: 31(1): 113–137 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.17323/1811-038X-2022-31-1-113-137; EDN: SXNSOS.
15. Tikhonova N. E., Slobodenyuk E. D. The heterogeneity of poverty in Russia through the prism of deprivation and absolute approaches. Obshchestvennye nauki i sovremennost', 2014: 1: 36–49 (in Russ.).EDN: RZUCOB.
16. Uroven i profil bednosti v Rossii: ot 1990-h godov do nashikh dney [The level and profile of poverty in Russia: from the 1990s to the present day]. Ed. by L. N. Ovcharova. Moscow, VSHE, 2014: 35 (in Russ.).
17. Buttler F. What Determines Subjective Poverty? An Evaluation of the Link between Relative Income Poverty Measures and Subjective Economic Stress within the EU. Preprint of the DFG Research Unit «Horizontal Europeanization». Oldenburg, 2013.
18. Goedhart T., Halberstadt V. et al. The poverty line: concept and measurement. Journal of human resources, 1978: 12(4): 503–520. DOI: 10.2307/145372.
19. Jackman M. R., Jackman R. W. An interpretation of the relation between objective and subjective social status. American sociological review, 1973: 5(38): 569–582. DOI: 10.2307/2094408.
20. Mahmood T., Yu X., Klasen S. Do the poor really feel poor? Comparing objective poverty with subjective poverty in Pakistan. Social Indicators Research, 2019: 142: 543–580. DOI: 10.1007/s11205-018-1921–4.
21. Posel D., Rogan M. Measured as poor versus feeling poor: Comparing money-metric and subjective poverty rates in South Africa. Journal of human development and capabilities, 2016: 17(1): 55–73. DOI: 10.1080/19452829.2014.985198.
22. Ravallion M. Poor, or just feeling poor? On using subjective data in measuring poverty. Happiness and economic growth, 2014: November: 140–178. DOI: 10.1596/1813-9450-5968.
23. Rojas M. Experienced poverty and income poverty in Mexico: A subjective well-being approach. World Development, 2008: 36(6): 1078–1093. DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2007.10.005.
24. Siposné N. E. Subjective poverty and its relation to objective poverty concepts in Hungary. Social Indicators Research, 2011: 102: 537–556. DOI: 10.1007/s11205-010-9743-z.
25. Vos K., Garner T. I. An evaluation of subjective poverty definitions: Comparing results from the US and the Netherlands. Review of Income and Wealth, 1991: 37(3): 267–285. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-4991.1991.tb00371.x.
26. Wang H. et al. Poverty and subjective poverty in rural China. Social Indicators Research, 2020: 150: 219–242. DOI: 10.1007/s11205-020-02303-0.
27. Želinský T., Mysíková M., Garner T. I. Trends in subjective income poverty rates in the European Union. The European Journal of Development Research, 2022: 34(5): 2493–2516. DOI: 10.1057/s41287-021-00457-2.