The stability of the income structure of Belarusian households looks like stagnation. More than 70 percent of families get nearly two thirds of their monetary incomes as salaries and wages. The situation has been the same for the past 10 years. The share of income from entrepreneurial activities does not exceed 3.5 percent.
The total monetary income of one Belarusian household in 2005 amounted to $294 per month, or $113 per person. All Belarusian families earned $13.1 billion last year. Interestingly, they spent as much as $14.9 billion, showing a substantial difference between officially declared incomes and expenditures.
Monetary earnings per family rose by 31.5 percent in 2005 year-on-year. The rate of growth somewhat slowed down in comparison with 2004 but remained rather high anyway. If the growth of incomes came from the growth of labor productivity, the Belarusian economic model would surely get a round of international applause. However, we know that how much people are paid depends on the government's orders rather than on economic factors. Having to follow administrative commands, companies have to take resources from their working assets and thereby limit their development capabilities. Therefore, there is not much to be happy about incomes growing in such a way. Incomes from other sources do not grow. No diversification of earnings takes place.
Pension allowances are the second important source of income for Belarusians. They are paid to 52.8 percent of the country's households. One household got the average of $123 per month last year. Belarus remains a country of primitive family agriculture. Many households have to grow food in their dachas or villages to improve their material situation. This type of activity is the most important element of food and social security for the country. Nearly 94 percent of households get some income from their agricultural activities. In 2005 it was the average of $24.5 per month, which is $2.3 more than in 2004.
For comparison: 64.9 percent of households get social benefits. Their average monthly amount totaled just $9 per family, or $3.5 per person, last year. Thus, the size of benefits is 170 percent smaller than income from primitive agricultural activities. It means that the government has effectively failed to make its social assistance targeted. Five years ago the number of people who received social benefits was smaller than now. The culture of dependence and re-distribution keeps flourishing in Belarus. It would be more logical in this situation if the government adopted a state program for the development of dachas and household agriculture.
The share of families that got allowances from the government was 21.3 percent in 2005. It has been nearly the same in the recent years, which also shows the lack of reforms in the social sector. The amount of allowance per family was just $29 a month. This is certainly not enough to raise kids or get medical treatment for seniors.
The dominance of old agricultural methods prevents Belarusians from enhancing the commercial potential of their activities. About 20 percent of families got proceeds from selling their agricultural produce in 2005. Their average amount was $28 per month. This is about the same that 48.1 percent of families get in the form of material assistance from their relatives.
There is an extremely low level of income from shareholding, and letting out or selling real property. Just a small percentage of wealth families are involved in this type of activities. Just 0.5 percent of households showed last year that they had certain incomes from selling their real property. About 4.5 percent of families earned something on letting out property or on holding shares of joint stock companies.
Corporate shares bring almost no profit at all. Their biggest value is the paper that they are printed on. The Belarusians are deprived of the possibility to get income from having shares of highly profitable productions, both domestic and foreign. In Russia, for comparison, its stock market increased in value by twofold last year. EU and US investment funds earned a lot of money there. At the same time, Belarusians - a formal ally - are still cut off from the stock market of its huge eastern neighbor.
Regionally, the highest level of pay is registered in households in Minsk ($291 per month) and the lowest one in the Mahilyow region ($149 per month). The level of pay is lower in rural areas. Residents in the countryside receive just $119 per month for their work. In addition, each month they get $38 as income from their household plots and $15.5 from selling their produce.
Let us compare household budgets of the 10 percent of the poorest families and 10 percent of the richest families. The monthly consumer spending amounted to $151 in the first group and to $454 in the second group in 2005. The 10 percent of the poorest ones spend $77, or 50.5 percent, on food per month, while the respective figure for the second group is $172, or 37.9 percent. The Belarusian poor spent $34 on non-food consumer products and $19.3 on utilities per month last year.
An analysis of how much families in quintile groups get in benefits and subsidies shows whether the system of social support is really adequate. The 20 percent of the poorest Belarusian families get $1.9 per month for food in subsidies. The 20 percent of the richest ones get $0.5. It would seem that the situation is fair. But the size of subsidies for public transport for the 20 percent of the richest families is by more than 20 percent larger than for the poorest ones: $1.8 against $0.7. There is a similar situation with respect to subsidies for utilities: the 20 percent of the richest ones get by 80 percent more than the 10 percent of the poorest ones (although the size of these subsidies is very small: $0.7 against $0.4). The rich also get more from the state for vacations and pharmaceuticals.
On the whole, the 20 percent of the richest families received state subsidies worth of $6.5 per month in 2005, while the 20 percent of the poorest ones worth of $5.8. Indeed, the share of benefits and subsidies in the total income of the 20 percent of the poorest Belarusian families is higher than in any other group (3.7 percent). But why should the 20 percent of the richest families get subsidies that amount to 2.5 percent of their income? The state should learn to help those in need rather than to help everyone little by little. Last year the Belarusian government did not become any closer to meeting that challenge in 2005.

Incomes of Belarusian households in 2004-2005

Source: Belarusian Ministry of Statistics, 2005- 2006