Search

Copyright of Acta Economica is the property of University of Banja Luka, Faculty of Economics and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article presents the population dynamics of housing tenure groups in the changing institutional and economic conditions of post-Soviet Russia. We show that during the first stages of privatization, different income groups did not differ in the share of households whose members obtained the status of property owners, but that the share of those who owned the housing they occupied in the low-income group became lower than in other groups beginning in the early 2000s. Meanwhile, the differentiation of income groups by ownership of other housing assets remains: There are twice as many who own second housing properties among high-income households than among the poor. The modern housing stratum of Russian households represents a combination of the two large middle groups, those who own only apartments or houses (70 percent), and a multitude of small, low-populated groups: "housing minorities" of apartment tenants below that stratification (10 percent) and owners of several housing assets above it (16–17 percent). We might attribute the middle stratum to the 1.5 percent of households living in homes they themselves do not own but who own other housing assets. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper present results obtained from analysis of data about nonfinancial assets owned by or at the disposal of Russian households. The study was based on data from Integrated Monitoring of Living Conditions of the Russian Population (Rosstat, 2011), representing the general population and federal districts. Taking into account the content of the database, the nonfinancial wealth of households included the following assets: primary residence and other residential property, cars and other vehicles, garage, land plots, and business ownership or equity. The main asset of families in Russia is their housing (which on average is owned by 86% households in the country); the next most common asset is land (in ownership or use, 49% households); the third leading assets is cars (owned by 37% of households). Each asset was assigned points accounting for its characteristics, which enabled us to integrally assess the property assets held by each household and to identify six layers characterized by their holdings of nonfinancial assets. The layers are arranged from the group with the least wealth to the group with the largest: the lowest layer (13.6% of households), base layers with holdings lower (30.3%) and higher (28.1%) than the average, and the layer with moderately high (16.2%) and the highest (5.8% of all households) holdings of nonfinancial assets; there was also a separate stratum of households with no assets (6.1%). The structure of owners with regard to each asset and the comprehensive (point-based) estimate of wealth of households are analyzed in the context of federal districts and settlements with different numbers of residents (less than 1000 people, 1000-50000, 50000-100000, 100000-500000, 500000-1000000, and more than 1 mln people). Differences in wealth are more closely related to the settlement characteristics of the place of residence than with regional ones. However, although the characteristics of the place of residence substantially increase the likelihood of a particular level of nonfinancial wealth for a household, their contribution is much less significant than the contribution of characteristics reflecting the efforts of household members to accumulate wealth and family stability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Cuadernos de Contabilidad is the property of Pontificia Universidad Javeriana and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This paper describes an income-statement-focused framework for selecting between between the fair value and historical cost measurement attributes that differs from the balance-sheet-focused relevance versus reliability tradeoff perspective that is common to most academic research. This income-statement-focused framework is then applied to the Christensen and Nikolaev setting in Rev Account Stud 18(3), () to suggest that most of the study's findings are not surprising and can be explained by differences in the income-relevance of fair value and historical cost measures for nonfinancial assets rather than issues with the reliability of fair value measurements, which is the perspective taken by the authors. The paper closes by suggesting additional research on the use of fair value and historical cost measures for nonfinancial assets that would be most relevant to current standard-setting activities of the Financial Accounting Standards Board. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]