Charity in Russia: from Alms to “Tax For the Poor” and Back

Abstract

Social spending is the first-largest spending of the Russian Federation consolidated budgetbut it still remains insufficient. Such spending was not planned at all in the state list onehundred years ago, and all social insurance was carried out as part of charitable activities.The article presents the evolution of charitable activities from alms to current “humanitarianspending” and shows the prospects and tendencies for its further development. The articlecovers the history of the origin and concept contents of “state charity”, “public charity”,“social security”, “social protection” and “state social insurance” in Russia. It touchesupon the issue of “monetization” of social benefits in Russia in 2004 that have generateda good deal of excitement. In the article, charitable activity is being considered for the firsttime through the prism of budget expenditures as one of the aspects of public economy.It describes the history of changes in public policy relative to assistance to the poor in theRussian Empire from the 16th century, in the Soviet period till the present time. In addition,the author made assumptions about the prospects of social spending, which is associatedwith the implementation of such modern ideas at the international and national level, as theconcept of human capital development and unconditional basic income. The sources ofsecurity of the most complicated system of state and public charity, which was formed in theRussian Empire by the beginning of the 20th century, have been analyzed for the first time.The article examined the idea of the “tax for the poor” that has appeared at the end of the19th century due to the activity of Konstantin Grot’s committee, which is not only a means toensure expenditures for state charity, but also a logical stage in the consistent developmentof charitable activities that was interrupted after the Russian Revolution. In addition, it coversthe ratio of the “tax for the poor” and modern insurance contributions and the transformationof the purpose of the “tax for the poor”.