Socio-economic Policy of the Eurasian Economic Union Countries

and Regions and Its Modernization Specifics: Problems and

Contradictions

Tatiana S. Malakhova

, Boris E. Markov

and Natalia V. Poluyanova

Kuban State University, Krasnodar, Russia

Krasnodar University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, Krasnodar, Russia

Belgorod State National Research University, Belgorod, Russia

Keywords: Socio-economic Policy, Integration, Eurasian Economic Union, Employment, Unemployment, Charged

Services, Expenses.

Abstract: In modern conditions, the EEU countries socio-economic situation is transforming under the influence of

external challenges and threats related to the current crisis, the change in the world economic system, the

world monetary system transformation, etc. All these factors directly affect the Eurasian Economic Union

countries socio-economic policy. This article is aimed at studying the key socio-economic indicators of the

Eurasian Economic Union countries, at building a linear model of the households and monetary expenditures

actual final consumption and expenditures for the goods and services purchase in Russia ratio, as well as

calculating forecasts of individual economic indicators in the given area. Moreover, special attention is paid

to the Russian socio-economic policy and its relation with the Eurasian Economic Union partner countries

through the deepening integration processes prism. As a theoretical and methodological basis, the article uses

historical, logical, dialectical principles and contradictions, the scientific abstraction method. The process-

system approach, which was used in an in-depth analysis of key indicators in the given area, has become

especially important in the argument about the need to strengthen the relations between the countries of the

integration group in the socio-economic sphere. Based on an in-depth analysis of the EEU countries socio-

economic indicators and the formation of a linear model, the key directions for the integration processes

development in the region are identified. The emphasis is shifted towards strengthening the inter-country

relations in key socio-economic areas of the partner countries and focusing on a coordinated economic policy

in these areas. On the basis of the presented econometric model and the key EEU countries socio-economic

indicators, the problems and contradictions in the socio-economic field are investigated, also the directions

for the contradictions elimination are identified. This will lead to the development and strengthening of

relations between the partner countries.

1 INTRODUCTION

In modern conditions, the world economy as a whole

is experiencing serious transformations associated

with the transition of countries to a new world

economic and technological order, with the neoliberal

model crisis, with changes in the monetary and

financial systems, the appearance of new economic

leaders in the world, etc. (Malakhova and

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5971-8178

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4798-6906

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2978-9124

Kolesnikov, 2019). All these changes directly affect

both individual countries and other subjects of the

world economy, including integration groups

(Malakhova, Dubinina, Maksaev, Fomin, 2019). The

EEU is no exception, as it is actively internationalized

in global economic relations with partner countries.

Despite the strengthening of inter-country relations in

the Eurasian Economic Union, there are problems and

contradictions in the socio-economic sphere in each

country, based on their development models. The

254

Malakhova, T., Markov, B. and Poluyanova, N.

Socio-economic Policy of the Eurasian Economic Union Countries and Regions and its Modernization Speciﬁcs: Problems and Contradictions.

DOI: 10.5220/0010666900003223

In Proceedings of the 1st International Scientiﬁc Forum on Sustainable Development of Socio-economic Systems (WFSDS 2021), pages 254-260

ISBN: 978-989-758-597-5

article focuses on the current state of Russian socio-

economic policy through the prism of integration

processes with the EEU countries.

2 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

In Russia, many scientists and experts are engaged in

research in the field of the country socio-economic

policy through the integration processes prism. One

of the notable scientists is the academician Glazyev

S.Yu., who emphasizes that the key task of the EEU

development is to build a proper single economic

space and further implement a common policy in

industry, agriculture, energy and other areas

(Glazyev, 2020). Scientists Greenberg R.S. and Pylin

A.G. note in their research that the integration group

is at a critical stage of its development, and serious

economic contradictions remain between the key

participants of the Eurasian Economic Union

(Greenberg and Pylin, 2020). Special attention in

Borodushko I.V. research is paid to the coordination

in the Eurasian Economic Union countries economic

policy through the convergence of the countries

socio-economic development level, increasing

competitiveness in domestic and foreign markets

(Borodushko, 2017). The scientists Pak Kh.S.,

Ushakova E.V., Borisova T.A. in their research

propose the system that uses the principle of

coordinated integration interaction in the EEU

countries. This principle will allow to identify and

assess the risk of potential threats, etc. (Pak Kh.S.,

Ushakova E.V., Borisova T.A., 2020). Knobel A.

evaluates the EEU development prospects and

problems, examines this integration group with other

world economy subjects (Knobel’, 2019). J. Garlick

and G. Shakhanova emphasize that it is important for

the Eurasian Economic Union countries to work on

joint projects with China in the field of infrastructure,

trade procedures, etc. (Garlic and Shakhanova, 2020).

We can draw a conclusion that the scientists study the

EEU countries economies from different sides and

positions, which makes it possible to assess their

socio-economic policies more deeply.

3 RESEARCH RESULTS

There is a number of key indicators for assessing and

analyzing the current socio-economic policies in the

EEU countries. They are presented in Table 1. The

population in the EEU countries did not change

significantly from 2016 to 2019. In Armenia from

2016 to 2019 it was 3.0 million people. In the

Republic of Belarus, the population also did not

change (from 2016 to 2019, the figure was at the level

of 9.5 million people). Only in 2020, this indicator

decreased by 0.1 million people compared to 2019. In

Kazakhstan, the population in 2016 was 17.7 million

people, in 2017 it was 17.9 million people, in 2018 it

was 18.2 million people, in 2019 it was 18.4 million

people. This indicator in Kazakhstan was unstable for

the analyzed period. In 2019, compared to 2016, it

increased by 0.7 million people. Every year there was

an increase in the Kazakhstan population. In 2020,

compared to 2019, the indicator increased by 0.2

million people. In Kyrgyzstan, the population in 2016

was 6.0 million people, in 2017 it was 6.1 million

people, in 2018 it was 6.3 million people, in 2019 it

was 6.4 million people. The Kyrgyzstan population is

also increasing. In 2019, compared to 2016, the

growth was 0.4 million people. In 2020, compared to

2019, the population increased by 0.1 million people.

In Russia, the population in 2016 was 146.5 million

people, in 2017 it was 146.8 million people, in 2018

it was 146.9 million people, in 2019 it was 146.8

million people, in 2020 it was 146.7 million people.

In 2020, compared to 2016, there was an increase in

the population by 0.2 million people. If we study the

countries that are members of the CIS, but do not

function in the Eurasian Economic Union, according

to this indicator, then they also have an increase in the

population. For example, in Uzbekistan in 2016, this

figure was 31.6 million people, in 2017 it was 32.1

million people, in 2018 it was 32.7 million people, in

2019 it was 33.3 million people, in 2020 it was 33.9

million people. A significant socio-economic

indicator is the employment rate in the EEU countries

for 2016-2019. In Armenia, the employment rate was

52.1% in 2016, 51.9% in 2017, 49.7% in 2018, and

51.2% in 2019. In 2019, compared to 2018, this

indicator increased by 1.5%. In the Republic of

Belarus, the employment rate in 2016 was 72.9%,

73.5% in 2017, 74.5% in 2018, 75.1% in 2019. As

statistics show, the employment rate in the Republic

of Belarus increases every year. In Kazakhstan, it was

73.7% in 2016, 73.3% in 2017, and 74.4% in 2018. In

2018, compared to 2017, the employment rate

increased by 0.7 million people.

In Kyrgyzstan, this indicator was unstable over

the analyzed time period. In 2016, it was 60.4%,

59.3% in 2017, 59.5% in 2018, 60.3% in 2019. In

2019, compared to 2016, the employment rate

decreased by 0.1%. In Russia, it was 70.0% in 2016,

70.3% in 2017, 71.0% in 2018, and 70.8% in 2019. In

2019, compared to 2016, the employment rate

increased by 0.8%.

Socio-economic Policy of the Eurasian Economic Union Countries and Regions and its Modernization Speciﬁcs: Problems and

Contradictions

255

Table 1: The key socio-economic indicators in the Eurasian

Economic Union countries assessment through the prism of

strengthening integration processes in the region for 2016-

2019 (compiled by the authors based on the materials

(Population and social indicators of the CIS countries and

world separate countries 2016-2019, 2020)).

Countrie

Population, in million people /

Employment rate, in % /

Unemployment rate, in % /

Unemployment rate among young people

aged 15-24, in %

The income ratio of the 20% groups of

the most and least well-off population, in

times / Total number of pensioners, per

1,000 population

Years

2016 2017 2018 2019

Armenia

3.0 /

52.1 /

18.5 /

36.6 /

9.4 /

157

3.0 /

51.9 /

18.4 /

38.4 /

8.3 /

154

3.0 /

49.7 /

19.3 /

33.5 /

8.3 /

156

3.0 /

51.2 /

18.4 /

31.9 /

8.3 /

158

Belarus

9.5 /

72.9 /

5.9 /

10.7 /

4.2 /

276

9.5 /

73.5 /

5.6 / 9.3

3.9 /

273

9.5 /

74.5 /

4.8 /

10.7 /

4.0 /

270

9.5 /

75.1 /

4.1 /

10.2 /

4.0 /

267

Kazakhs

tan

17.7 /

73.7 /

5.0 / 3.8

4.0 /

155

17.9 /

73.7 /

4.9 / 3.8

4.2 /

157

18.2 /

74.4 /

4.9 / 3.7

4.2 /

157

18.4 /

– /

4.9 /

3.6 /

4.2 /

157

Kyrgyzst

6.0 /

60.4 /

7.3 /

15.5 /

8.4 /

123

6.1 /

59.3 /

7.0 /

14.8 /

7.7 /

123

6.3 /

59.5 /

6.2 /

12.4 /

7.1 /

124

6.4 /

60.3 /

5.5 /

12.8 /

6.6 /

125

Russia

146.5 /

70.0 /

5.6 /

16.3 /

8.9 /

294

146.8 /

70.3 /

5.2 /

16.1 /

8.8 /

296

146.9 /

71.0 /

4.8 /

16.6 /

8.9 /

299

146.8 /

70.8 /

4.6 /

15.5 /

8.8 /

297

Now we shall proceed to the analysis of the

socially significant indicator that is the

unemployment rate. In 2016, the unemployment rate

in Armenia was 18.5%, 18.4% in 2017, 19.3% in

2018, 18.4% in 2019. In 2019, compared to 2018, this

indicator decreased by 0.9%. However, the analysis

showed that there were no significant changes during

this period. In the Republic of Belarus in 2016, the

unemployment rate was 5.9%, 5.6% in 2017, 4.8% in

2018, 4.1% in 2019. In 2019, compared to 2016, it

decreased by 1.8%. In Kazakhstan, no significant

changes were observed during the analyzed period. In

2016, the unemployment rate was 5.0%, 4.9% in

2017, 4.9% in 2018, 4.9% in 2019. In Kyrgyzstan, the

unemployment rate was 7.3% in 2016, 7.0% in 2017,

6.2% in 2018, and 5.5% in 2019. In Kyrgyzstan, there

was a significant reduction in the given indicator. In

2019, compared to 2016, the unemployment rate

decreased by 1.8%. It remains to analyze this

indicator for Russia. In 2016, the unemployment rate

in the country was 5.6%, 5.2% in 2017, 4.8% in 2018,

4.6% in 2019. In 2019, compared to 2016, it

decreased by 1.0%. Special attention should be paid

to the youth unemployment rate in the countries of the

Eurasian Economic Union. The dynamics of the

given indicator is also presented in Table 1. In

general, the unstable dynamics in this indicator was

observed in the EEU. In Armenia, the youth

unemployment rate was 36.6% in 2016, 38.4% in

2017, 33.5% in 2018, and 31.9% in 2019. In 2019,

compared to 2016, the youth unemployment rate

decreased by 4.7%. In the Republic of Belarus, there

was an unstable dynamics in this indicator. In 2016,

it was 10.7%, 9.3% in 2017, 10.7% in 2018, 10.2% in

2019. In 2019, compared to 2017, the youth

unemployment rate increased by 0.9%. In

Kazakhstan, it was 3.8% in 2016, 3.8% in 2017, 3.7%

in 2018, and 3.6% in 2019. In 2019, compared to

2016, this indicator decreased by 0.2%. In

Kyrgyzstan, the youth unemployment rate was 15.5%

in 2016, 14.8% in 2017, 12.4% in 2018, and 12.8% in

2019. In 2019, compared to 2016, this indicator

decreased by 2.7%. In Russia, the youth

unemployment rate was unstable over the analyzed

time period. In 2016, it was 16.3%, 16.1% in 2017,

16.6% in 2018, 15.5% in 2019. This indicator in 2019

decreased by 0.8% compared to 2016.

A significant socio-economic indicator is the

income ratio of the 20% groups of the most and least

wealthy population. In Armenia, this indicator was

9.4% in 2016, 8.3% in 2017, 8.3% in 2018, and 8.3%

in 2019. In 2019, compared to 2016, it decreased by

1.1%. There were no significant fluctuations in this

indicator in the Republic of Belarus during the

analyzed period. In 2016, it was 4.2%, 3.9% in 2017,

4.0% in 2018, 4.0% in 2019. This indicator decreased

by 0.2% in 2019 compared to 2016. In Kazakhstan, in

2016, the income ratio of the 20 percent groups of the

most and least wealthy population was 4.0%, 4.2% in

2017, 4.2% in 2018, 4.2% in 2019. In 2019, compared

to 2016, in Kazakhstan, on the contrary, this indicator

increased by 0.2%. In Kyrgyzstan, it was 8.4% in

2016, 7.7% in 2017, 7.1% in 2018, and 6.6% in 2019.

In 2019, compared to 2016, this indicator decreased

WFSDS 2021 - INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC FORUM ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS

256

by 1.8%. As for Russia, there were no significant

changes in the analyzed indicator. In 2016, it was

8.9%, 8.8% in 2017, 8.9% in 2018, 8.8% in 2019. It

is important to note that in Russia this indicator is the

highest not only among the countries of the Eurasian

Economic Union, but also among the CIS countries.

For example, in Uzbekistan in 2017 it was 4.1%,

4.1% in 2018, 4.1% in 2019. In the Republic of

Moldova in 2016, this indicator was 6.9%, 6.4% in

2017, 5.8% in 2018, 6.2% in 2019. In 2019, compared

to 2016, it decreased by 0.7%. Another important

socio-economic indicator is the total number of

pensioners and their social support. Within the

framework of this article, the total number of

pensioners from 2016 to 2019 per 1,000 people of the

population is analyzed. In Armenia, in 2016, this

figure was 157 people, 154 people in 2017, 156

people in 2018, 158 people in 2019. In 2019,

compared to 2016, it increased by 1 person. In the

Republic of Belarus, this indicator was unstable

during the analyzed period. In 2016, it was 276 people

per 1,000 population of the Republic of Belarus, 273

people in 2017, 270 people in 2018, 267 people in

2019. In 2019, compared to 2016, this indicator

decreased by 9 people. In Kazakhstan, there were no

significant changes in the total number of pensioners.

In 2016, the figure was 155 people, 157 people in

2017, 157 people in 2018, 157 people in 2019. In

2019, compared to 2016, this indicator increased by 2

people. It remains to analyze this indicator in

Kyrgyzstan and Russia. In 2016, the total number of

pensioners in Kyrgyzstan was 123 people per 1,000

people, 123 people in 2017, 124 people in 2018, 125

people in 2019. In 2019, compared to 2016, this

indicator increased by 2 people. In Russia, in 2016, it

was 294 people, 296 people in 2017, 299 people in

2018, 297 people in 2019. In 2019, compared to 2016,

this indicator increased by 3 people. In general, there

were no significant changes in this indicator

(Population and social indicators of the CIS countries

and world separate countries 2016-2019, 2020).

The Russian Federation socio-economic

development forecast or the period up to 2024 pays

special attention to the development of economic and

social sectors (education, health, culture, physical

culture and sports). The main directions of education

development for the period up to 2024 are approved

by the Decree and the State program "The Education

Development". In the health care system in 2019-

2024, certain measures will be taken to reduce the

mortality rates of the working-age population, to

develop infrastructure, to strengthen the preventive

orientation of health care sphere, etc. The priority

measures for the cultural sphere development, the

State cultural policy strategic objectives, as well as

the key principles for the culture implementation until

2024 are provided for by the Decree, the Strategy of

the State Cultural Policy for the period up to 2030,

etc. The physical culture and sports development until

2024 will be carried out in accordance with the

Decree, the State program "The Physical Culture and

Sports Development", etc. (Forecast of socio-

economic development of the Russian Federation for

the period up to 2024, 2019). Despite the

implementation of the presented programs, strategies,

etc. in the field of the Russian Federation socio-

economic development there is a trend towards an

annual increase in charged services (Table 2).

Table 2 generally shows the volume of charged

services to the Russian population. In 2019, compared

to 2010, this indicator increased by 5,451,737 million

rubles. The volume of transport services to the

population in 2010 was 940,545 million rubles, in

2015 it was 1,481,518, in 2016 it was 1,699,442, in

2017 it was 1,850,446, in 2018 it was 1,928,971, in

2019 it was 2,060,506 million rubles. In 2019,

compared to 2010, this indicator increased by

1,119,961 million rubles. The next socially

significant indicator is the volume of housing services

to the population. In 2010, it was 286,552 million

rubles, in 2015 it was 525,594 million rubles, in 2016

it was 580,614 million rubles, in 2017 it was 677,773

million rubles, in 2018 it was 722,209 million rubles,

in 2019 it was 765,342 million rubles. In 2019,

compared to 2010, the volume of housing services to

the population of Russia increased by 478,790 million

rubles.

The volume of charged medical services to the

population in 2010 was 250,474 million rubles,

528,359 million rubles in 2015, 572,445 million

rubles in 2016, 626,626 million rubles in 2017,

677,686 million rubles in 2018, 734,365 million

rubles in 2019. In 2019, compared to 2010, the

volume of charged medical services to the population

of Russia increased by 483,891 million rubles. Also,

special attention should be paid to the volume of

charged services in physical culture and sports in

Russia. In 2019, compared to 2010, this indicator

increased by 62,497 million rubles. A similar trend

was observed in the volume of charged tourist

services to the population. In 2010, this indicator was

99,879 million rubles, in 2015 it was 158,252, in 2016

it was 161,344, in 2017 it was 166,520, in 2018 it was

172,090, in 2019 it was 186,839 million rubles. In

2019, compared to 2010, the volume of charged

tourist services to the population of Russia increased

by 86,960 million rubles. At the figure 1 there is a

Socio-economic Policy of the Eurasian Economic Union Countries and Regions and its Modernization Speciﬁcs: Problems and

Contradictions

257

calculated forecast of the volume of charged services

in the education system until 2025.

Table 2: The dynamics of indicators of individual charged

services in Russia for 2010-2019, in million rubles

(compiled from the materials (Charged service to the

population in Russia, 2019))

Indicators

Years

2010 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Volume

of charged

services to

the

opulation

4,943,

482

8,05

0,808

8,636

,277

9,211,

441

9,703,

358

10,39

5,219

Volume

transport

services to

the

ulation

940,5

1,48

1,518

1,699

,442

1,850,

446

1,928,

971

2,060,

506

The

volume of

housing

services to

the

ulation

286,5

525,

594

580,6

677,7

722,2

765,3

The

volume of

charged

medical

services to

the

ulation

250,4

528,

359

572,4

626,6

677,6

734,3

The

volume of

charged

services in

the

education

system

326,1

539,

685

567,3

613,2

655,4

696,0

The

volume of

charged

services in

physical

culture

and s

orts

30,08

62,2

70,27

78,46

87,68

92,58

The

volume of

charged

tourist

services to

the

ulation

99,87

158,

252

161,3

166,5

172,0

186,8

Figure 1: The volume of charged services in the education

system from 2015 to 2019

and the calculation of the

forecast until 2025. (compiled and calculated by the authors

based on the materials (Charged service to the population

in Russia, 2019))

Calculations

have shown that the volume of

charged services in the education system will increase

with high and low probability until 2025. With a high

probability, this indicator in 2021 will be 788,258

million rubles, in 2022 it will be 828,768, in 2023 it

will be 869,271, in 2024 it will be 909,767, in 2025 it

will be 950,257 million rubles. Based on calculations,

in 2025, the volume of charged services in the

education system will increase by 294,785 million

rubles compared to 2018.

Let's build a linear model that includes the

following indicators: the households actual final

consumption and monetary expenditures for the

goods and services purchase in Russia (Figure 2). In

general, the Figure 2 shows the observations

uniformity presence, also there is the regression

equation and the determination coefficient (R2). The

equation of the linear pair regression model

describing the relationship between these indicators

has the following form 1:

y = 61.076+0.0003*x (1)

It is important to analyze the quality of the

presented model. To do this, we will estimate the

regression coefficients significance using the

Student's t-criteria. Then we will evaluate the model

using variance and correlation analysis. The Student's

test value is 2.262. It is important to establish the

significance of the coefficients a and b, so we assume

that:

No_a: a = 0 - not

statistically

significant

No_b: b = 0 - not

statistically significant

N1_b: b = 0 - not

statisticall

nifican

WFSDS 2021 - INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC FORUM ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS

258

N1_a: a = 0 - not

statistically

nifican

55.570 > 2.262

Ho_a is rejected with

a probabilit

of 95%

14.550 > 2262

Ho_b is rejected with

a probabilit

of 95%

Coefficient a is

statistically

nifican

Coefficient b is

statistically significant

The next way to analyze the quality of the model

is the Fisher F-criteria or regression dispersive

analysis. The hypothesis is as follows:

Ho: b=0 (there is no linear relationship

etween x and

)

F critical

–

5.318

F observed 211.704 > F critical 5.117, hence,

the Ho: b=0 hypothesis is deviated, i.e. there

is a linear relationship between the x and y

variables.

Figure 2: Linear model of the households actual final

consumption and monetary expenditures for the goods and

services purchase in Russia ratio (calculated by the authors)

The multiple R is the correlation coefficient value

(the linear relationship tightness measure between the

x and y variables). The multiple R was 0.959. Next,

we transfer the correlation coefficient into a

percentage and it is 95.9%. The 95.9% variation in the

variable y (monetary expenditures for the goods and

services purchase) is due to the variability of the

variable x (households actual final consumption). The

effect of x on y is 95.9%. Consequently, 4.1% is

accounted for by other factors not taken into account

in the model. The average approximation error is

0.756%. It is important to calculate the forecast of the

analyzed data. Thus, x amounts to 50,601.28 billion

rubles, and y amounts to 77.14%. Thus, if x increases

by 3% of the average value, then y will be 77.14%.

Forecast value intervals are the following: y min is

75.24%, y max is 79.04%. With a 95% chance of

increasing the x score by 3%, the y score will be in

the range of 75.24% to 79.04%. The analysis showed

that, based on the current situation in the Russian

socio-economic sphere, the maximum increase in the

y indicator is most likely. On this basis, there is a need

for further development of the socio-economic policy

not only in Russia, but also in other Eurasian

Economic Union countries. In December 2020 the

members of the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council

approved the Strategic Directions for the

Development of the Eurasian Economic Integration

until 2025 (On the Strategic Directions for the

Development of the Eurasian Economic Integration

until 2025, 2020). The document pays special

attention to the expansion of economic cooperation in

the fields of education, health, tourism and sport.

Figure 3 shows only individual directions and their

elements in the given areas. The presented strategic

directions for the development of the Eurasian

economic integration until 2025 will strengthen inter-

country relations in key socio-economic areas of the

partner countries and orient them towards a

coordinated economic policy in these areas. The

experience exchange between the Eurasian Economic

Union countries will provide an opportunity to

mitigate the problems and contradictions that exist in

Russian socio-economic sphere (Malakhova, 2018).

Figure 3: Key directions in the economic cooperation

expansion in the field of education, health, tourism and

sport (compiled by the authors based on the materials (On

the strategic directions of the development of the Eurasian

Economic Integration until 2025, 2020))

4 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

The calculations and analysis have shown that certain

socio-economic indicators in Russia are unstable,

which directly affects relations with the Eurasian

Economic Union countries. Any integration implies

the economies convergence, the strengthening of

cooperative ties within the association. However,

internal problems and contradictions in the country

Socio-economic Policy of the Eurasian Economic Union Countries and Regions and its Modernization Speciﬁcs: Problems and

Contradictions

259

economic development can negatively affect these

processes. The forecasts have shown that the volume

of charged services in the Russian education system

will grow until 2025 (forecasts with high and low

probability show an increase in this indicator). Not

only Russian socio-economic policy, but socio-

economic policies of other EEU countries include a

system of measures that should be implemented in the

interests of society, national economies economic

entities. This policy is focused on the economy

dynamic development, on the elimination of social

problems and contradictions that exist in the

countries.

5 CONCLUSION

Thus, first, the article analyzes the key socio-

economic indicators of the EEU countries for 2016-

2019 through the prism of strengthening integration

processes in the region. Special attention is paid to the

problems and contradictions that arise in the partner

countries of the association in the implementation of

the current socio-economic policy.

Secondly, individual charged services indicators

assessment and analysis for 2010-2019 in Russia was

carried out. There was an increase in volumes for all

types of services presented. On this basis, special

attention is paid to the volume of charged services in

the Russian education system from 2015 to 2019 and

the calculation of the forecast until 2025. The

calculation showed a similar increase in this

indicator.

Third, a linear model of the households actual

final consumption and monetary expenditures for the

goods and services purchase in Russia ratio has been

formed. The 95.9% variation in the variable y

(monetary expenditures for the goods and services

purchase) is due to the variability of the variable x

(households actual final consumption). In addition,

the strategic directions of the Eurasian economic

integration development until 2025 in the field of

education, health, tourism and sport were studied.

REFERENCES

Borodushko, I. V. (2017). Trends and problems of socio-

economic development of the countries of the Eurasian

Economic Union, Scientific Notes of the St. Petersburg

named after V.B. Bobkov branch of the Russian

Customs Academy, 2: 9–15.

Glazyev, S.Yu. (2020). On the strategic directions of

development of the EAEU, EURASIAN

INTEGRATION: economics, law, politics, 1: 11-30.

Greenberg, R.S., Pylin, A.G. Eurasian Economic Union.

Key development trends against the backdrop of global

uncertainty, Regional Economy, 16 (2): 340–351.

Malakhova, T.S. (2018). Development and improvement of

forms of economic interaction between countries (using

the EU experience in building the EAEU), Hypothesis,

3 (4): 62-70.

Population and social indicators of the CIS countries and

individual countries of the world 2016-2019. Interstate

Statistical Committee of the CIS. - M. 2020, pages 20-

32.

On the Strategic Directions for the Development of

Eurasian Economic Integration until 2025. URL. http:

https://www.economy.gov.ru/material/directions/makr

oec/prognozy_socialno_ekonomicheskogo_razvitiya/p

rognoz_socialno_ekonomicheskogo_razvitiya_rf_na_p

eriod_do_2024_goda_.html

Pak, Kh.S., Ushakova, E.V., Borisova, T.A. (2020). EAEU

Countries: Assessment of Economic Security,

Economics and Management, 5: 455–463.

Paid services for the population in Russia. Federal State

Statistics Service. - M. 2019.

Forecast of the socio-economic development of the Russian

Federation for the period up to 2024. http:

https://economy.gov.ru/material/file/35693c2d192c17

24a623ce71663edcea/prognoz24svod.pdf.

Garlick, J., Shakhanova, G. (2020). The Belt and Road

Initiative and the Eurasian Economic Union: Exploring

the “Greater Eurasian Partnership”, Journal of Current

Chinese Affairs, 49(1): 33–57.

Knobel’, A. (2019). The Eurasian Economic Union:

Development Prospects and Possible Obstacles,

Russian Social Science Review, 60(2): 137–161.

Malakhova, T.S., Dubinina, M.A., Maksaev, A.A., Fomin,

R.V. (2019). Foreign Trade and Marketing Processes in

the Context of Sustainable Development, International

Journal of Economics and Business Administration, 2:

195202.

Malakhova, T.S., Kolesnikov, N.P. (2019). Trends and

contradictions of the global economy crisis and

transformation of the world financial institutions,

European Journal of Economics and Management

Sciences, Scientific journal, 1: 38-41.

WFSDS 2021 - INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC FORUM ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS

260