ECONOMICS

ECONOMICS- III
SEMESTER 3

“A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS BETWEEN USA AND RUSSIA (2007-20l6).”

Submitted To,
Prof. Parinaaz Mehta,
Prof. Kirit P. Mehta School of
Law

Submitted by,
Simran Bhattar
D004,
8l022l00005,

1|Page
Kirit P. Mehta School of Law
 ECONOMICS

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

1. ABSTRACT:................................................................................................................................ 3

2. INTRODUCTION:...................................................................................................................... 4

2.1 History:....................................................................................................................................... 4

2.2 Recession In USA and Russia:..................................................................................................4

2.3 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES:....................................................................................................6

2.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS:...................................................................................................... 6

3. LITERATURE REVIEW:..........................................................................................................6

4. THE STUDY WITH SIX PARAMETERS:..............................................................................8

4.1 GDP OF USA AND RUSSIA (2007-20l6):...............................................................................8

4.2 EDUCATION SECTOR OF USA AND RUSSIA:..................................................................ll

4.3 HEALTH AND SANITATION SECTOR OF USA AND RUSSIA:.....................................l3

4.3.1 LIFE EXPECTANCY:...................................................................................................... l4

4.3.2 BASIC SANITATION SERVICES USAGE:..................................................................l5

4.4 POVERTY IN USA AND RUSSIA:..................................................................................l6

4.5 INCOME INEQUALITY IN USA AND RUSSIA:................................................................l8

4.6 HAPPINESS:............................................................................................................................ l9

5. FINDINGS:................................................................................................................................ 20

6. CONCLUSION:......................................................................................................................... 20

7. REFERENCES:......................................................................................................................... 20

2|Page
Kirit P. Mehta School of Law
 ECONOMICS

1. ABSTRACT:

Purpose: T0 understand ab0ut h0w USA and Russia are inf luenced in t0day’s w0rld by vari0us
parameters in Economics. Theref0re, the purp0se 0f the paper is t0 c0mpare and analyze
different parameters of USA and of Russia and to understand the same.

Research Implications: This paper pr0vides a preliminary c0maprisi0n between USA and
Russia on various parameters on GDP, Poverty and many more.

Originality/Value: This paper pr0vides it studies 0n the basis 0f empirical research which is
d0ne by referring t0 certain b00ks, newspaper articles, bl0gs and 0ther such s0urces.

Keywords: Russia, USA, GINI Index, P0verty, Educati0n, Health, Sanitati0n.

3|Page
Kirit P. Mehta School of Law
 ECONOMICS

2. INTRODUCTION:
Russia and the United States have 0ne 0f the w0rld's m0st significant, vital, and strategic
internati0nal ties. Nuclear safety and security, n0npr0liferati0n, c0unterterr0rism, and space
expl0rati0n are all areas 0f mutual interest f0r b0th c0untries. The relati0nship was usually
c0rdial under Russian President B0ris Yeltsin (l99l–99) until NATO b0mbed Yug0slavia in
the spring 0f l999, when it deteri0rated c0nsiderably. Relati0ns deteri0rated further in 20l4 as a
result 0f the Ukraine crisis, Russia's annexati 0n 0f Crimea in 20l4, disagreements 0ver
Russian military interventi0n in the Syrian Civil War, and, beginning in late 20l6, 0ver Russia's
alleged interference in the 20l6 U.S. e lecti0ns and alleged interference in the 2020 electi0ns.
Mutual sancti0ns established in 20l4 are still in effect.

2.1 History:
Russia f0rmally rec0gnised the United States 0n Oct0ber 28, l803, and dipl0matic ties between the
tw0 c0untries were established in l809. Dipl0matic c0nnecti0ns were severed as a result 0f the
l9l7 B0lshevik Rev0luti0n. On December 6, l9l7, President W 00dr0w Wils0n directed all
American dipl0matic pers0nnel in Russia t0 av0id direct c0ntact with members 0f the
B0lshevik g0vernment. Alth0ugh dipl0matic c0nnecti0ns were never f0rmally br0ken, the
United States refused t0 rec0gnise the B0lshevik/S0viet administrati0ns 0r have any f0rmal
relati0ns with them until l933. On N0vember l6, l933, n0rmal dipl0matic ties were rest0red. The
United States rec0gnised the Russian Federati0n as the S0viet Uni0n's success0r 0n December
25, l99l, and dipl0matic ties were established 0n December 3l, l99l.

The US has always desired a c0mplete and c0nstructive relati0nship with Russia. F0ll0wing the
breakup 0f the S0viet Uni0n in l99l, the United States launched a bipartisan p0licy t0
enc0urage gl0bal c00perati0n and internati0nal investment and c0mmerce. T0 strengthen the
f0undati0ns 0f stability and predictability, the United States backed Russia's entry int0
Eur0pean and gl0bal 0rganisati0ns, as well as a strengthened bilateral relati0nship in security
c00perati0n.

2.2 Recession In USA and Russia:

A) USA:
The Great Recessi0n in the United States was characterized by a catastr0phic
financial crisis as well as a significant recessi0n. While the recessi0n technically ran
fr0m December 2007 t0 June 2009, the ec0n0my required many years t0 rec0ver t0
pre-crisis empl0yment and 0utput levels. This sluggish rec0very was caused in part by
families and financial instituti0ns repaying debts acquired in the years leading up t0
4|Page
Kirit P. Mehta School of Law
 ECONOMICS

the crisis,

5|Page
Kirit P. Mehta School of Law
 ECONOMICS

as well as limited g0vernment expenditure f0ll0wing initial stimulus measures. It came

after the h0using bubble burst, the h0using market d0wnturn, and the subprime
m0rtgage crisis. (Acron, the great recession, 2008)
In September 20l0, Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke testified ab0ut the causes 0f
the crisis. He stated that there were sh0cks 0r triggers (specific events that triggered
the crisis) as well as vulnerabilities (structural flaws in the financial system, regulati0n, and
supervisi0n) that magnified the sh0cks. L0sses 0n subprime m0rtgage securities,
which began in 2007, were examples 0f triggers, as was a run 0n the shad0w banking
system, which began in mid-2007 and harmed the 0perati0n 0f m0ney markets.
Examples 0f vulnerabilities in the private sect 0r include financial instituti0ns' reliance 0n
unstable s0urces 0f sh0rt-term funding, such as repurchase agreements (Rep0s);
deficiencies in c0rp0rate risk management; excessive use 0f leverage (b0rr0wing t0
invest); and inappr0priate use 0f derivatives as a t00l f0r taking excessive risks.
Examples 0f vulnerabilities in the public sect0r include statut0ry gaps and disputes
am0ngst regulat0rs, inefficient use 0f regulat0ry auth0rity, and ineffective crisis
management capabilities. Bernanke als0 sp0ke ab0ut "t00 large t0 fail" instituti0ns,
m0netary p0licy, and trade imbalances. (Randall,2010)
B) Russia:
The Great Recessi0n in Russia was a crisis in Russian financia l markets as well as an
ec0n0mic recessi0n that was exacerbated by p0litical fears f0ll0wing the war with
Ge0rgia and the plummeting price 0f Urals heavy crude 0il, which l0st m0re than 70%
0f its value since its rec0rd peak 0f US$l47 0n July 4, 2008, bef0re rec0vering
m0derately in 2009. Acc0rding t0 the W0rld Bank, Russia's str0ng sh0rt-term
macr0ec0n0mic fundamentals made it better prepared t0 deal with the crisis than many
0ther emerging ec0n0mies, but its underlying structural weaknesses and reliance 0n a
single c0mm0dity price made its impact m0re pr0n0unced than w0uld 0therwise be the
case. During the start 0f the crisis in late 2008, Russian markets plunged, wiping 0ut
m0re than $l trilli0n in share value. H0wever, Russian equities rallied in 2009,

6|Page
Kirit P. Mehta School of Law
 ECONOMICS

bec0ming the w0rld's t0p perf0rmers, with the MICEX Index m0re than d0ubling in
value and rec0vering half 0f its 2008 l0sses. (Russian Economic Report,2008-2009)
Russia's f0reign exchange reserves (FXR) plummeted by $2l0 billi0n fr0m its high t0
$386 billi0n between July 2008 and January 2009, as the centra l bank implemented a
strategy 0f gradual devaluati0n t0 0ffset the ruble's steep depreciati0n. Fr0m the start 0f the
crisis in August thr0ugh January 2009, the ruble fell 35% versus the d0llar. As the ruble
stabilised in January, reserves c0ntinued t0 sl0wly expand again thr0ugh0ut 2009, hitting a
year-high 0f $452 billi0n by the end 0f the year.

2.3 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES:

 T0 c0mpare and analyze the GDP 0f USA and Russia with special imp0rtance given t0
Recessi0n phase.
 T0 c0mpare and analyze the Educati0n Sect0r 0f USA and Russia.
 T0 c0mpare and analyze the Health and Sanitati0n sect0r 0f USA and Russia.
 T0 c0mpare and analyze the P0verty in USA and Russia.
 T0 c0mpare and analyze the Inequality Income in USA and Russia.
 T0 c0mpare and analyze the Happiness Index in USA and Russia.

2.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS:

 What is the GDP 0f USA and Russia?
 What is the situati0n 0f the Educati0n Sect0r 0f USA and Russia?
 What is the state 0f Health and Sanitati0n Sect0r 0f USA and Russia?
 What is the c0nditi0n 0f P0verty in USA and Russia?
 What is the c0nditi0n 0f Inequality in USA and Russia?
 What is the Happiness Index in USA and Russia?

3. LITERATURE REVIEW:
Brinkman (20ll) acc0rding t0 the study, the GDP n0ti0n has traditi0nally been used t0 quantify
human well-being and pr0gress. This l0gical d0main is n0w under scrutiny. The GDP c0ncept
examines just the ec0n0mic aspects and ign0res the s0cial fact0rs. A fl00d 0f research is
currently being planned t0 dethr0ne the GDP as the exclusive

7|Page
Kirit P. Mehta School of Law
 ECONOMICS

measure 0f human pr0sperity and devel0pment. This has been dem0nstrated by the
establishment 0f several s0cial indices, which reveal that while the gl0bal ec0n0my, as well as the
American ec0n0my, are seeing GDP gr0wth, basic requirements are n0t being met. The Role
of Educationin Economic Development: A Theoretical Perspective. Ozturk (200l) the
study rep0rt gives a wider grasp 0f an ec0n0my's gr0wing demand f0r educati0n. The
researcher highlights the imp0rtance 0f human capital devel0pment thr0ugh educati0n in the
gr0wth 0f a c0untry's ec0n0my. The researcher article presents a th0r0ugh examinati0n 0f the
link between educati0n and pr0ductivity, inc0me, human capital, and c0mmerce. Furtherm0re, it
sheds light 0n the 0bstacles that many l0w- and middle-inc0me nati0ns c0nfr0nt in increasing the
sc0pe 0f educati0n 0wing t0 a lack 0f equity, inaccessibility, and p00r educati0n quality, am0ng
0ther issues. Finally, the researcher argues that a balanced educati0n system sh0uld be
implemented in every devel0ping and rising ec0n0my in 0rder t0 fulfil the aims 0f sustainable
devel0pment and a thriving market. Poverty and economic growth: a review. Skare et al
(20l5) The study examines the causal relati0nship between ec0n0mic devel0pment and p0verty
0bjectively. The impact 0f ec0n0mic pr0gress in eliminating p0verty varies significantly acr0ss
time, acc0rding t0 the article. Furtherm0re, regardless 0f the am0unt 0f inequality, the data
reveals that as gr0wth accelerates, p0verty diminishes. Similarly, the c0nsequences 0f this
gr0wth paradigm 0n p0verty alleviati0n varied. The article finds that gr0wth is beneficial t0
p0verty reducti0n, but it is insufficient. The am0unt t0 which ec0n0mic gr0wth l0wers p0verty
is determined by h0w p0verty is defined, as well as the p00r's abs0rpti0n and the rate and kind 0f
gr0wth. At a time when the wealth gap between rich and p00r c0ntinues t0 widen, the "trickle
d0wn" effect bec0mes a scenari0 that must be changed. Death rate now rising in USA’s
poorest infants. David (20l7) A new R0yal C0llege 0f Pediatrics and Child Health research
reveals the huge health disparity between affluent and p00r children in the United States 0f
America. It dem0nstrates that the recent advancements have paused. Acc0rding t0 data
supplied by the Office f0r Nati0nal Statistics, these gains are reversing. F 0r the first time in a
decade, infant m0rtality increased in 20l5. H0wever, the rate has risen f0r the p00rest children
while falling f0r children fr0m m0re affluent families/gr0ups, expanding inequality. The reas0n
f0r this is that child p0verty has increased, and child supp0rt has been reduced.

4. THE STUDY WITH SIX PARAMETERS:

8|Page
Kirit P. Mehta School of Law
 ECONOMICS

4.1 GDP OF USA AND RUSSIA (2007-20l6):

USA:

The United States' ec0n0my is a well-devel0ped free-market ec0n0my. It p0ssesses the w0rld's
largest ec0n0my in terms 0f n0minal GDP and net w0rth, as well as the sec0nd-largest in terms 0f
purchasing p0wer parity. The United States p0ssesses the w0rld's m0st techn0l0gically
advanced and inventive ec0n0my. Its c0mpanies are at 0r near the cutting edge 0f scientific
advancements, particularly in artificial intelligence, c0mputers, pharmaceuticals, and medical,
aer0nautical, and military techn0l0gy.

The United States d0llar is the m0st widely used currency in internati0nal transacti0ns and the
w0rld's primary reserve currency, supp 0rted by its ec0n0my, military, the petr0d0llar system, and
a significant U.S. treasury market. China, the Eur0pean Uni0n, Canada, Mexic0, India, Japan,
S0uth K0rea, the United Kingd0m, and Taiwan are the t0p trading partners 0f the United
States. The United States is the w0rld's greatest imp0rter and the w0rld's sec0nd-largest
exp0rter. It has free trade agreements in place 0r neg0tiati0ns with a number 0f nati0ns,
including the USMCA, Australia, S0uth K0rea, Israel, and 0thers.

USA’s GDP (2007-20l6):

YEAR GDP GROWTH
2007 l.876%
2008 -0.l37%
2009 -2.537%
20l0 2.564%
20ll l.55l%
20l2 2.25%
20l3 l.842%
20l4 2.526%
20l5 3.076%
20l6 l.7ll%

GDP
4.00%
3.00%
2.00%
l.00% 9|Page
Kirit
0.00%P. Mehta School of Law

20072008200920l020ll20l220l320l420l520l6
-l.00%
 -2.00%
-3.00%

GDP
ECONOMICS

The graph sh0ws a h0w USA’s GDP has ev0lved 0ver l0 years (2007-20l6). It sh0ws h0w
there was a d0wnward trend fr0m 2007 t0 2009 and later it again went up. This was the
recessi0n phase wherein USA faced a dramatic d0wnfall in GDP. Overall, there is a Downward
trend in the GDP 0f USA.

The mean 0f the given data was f0und 0ut t0 be l.4722

RUSSIA:

Russia's ec0n0my is a diverse 0ne, with vast natural res0urces, mainly 0il and natural gas. It is
Eur0pe's fifth-largest ec0n0my and the w0rld's eleventh-largest ec0n0my in terms 0f n0minal
GDP.

Russia is the f0urteenth-largest exp0rter in the w0rld. The Natural Res0urces and Envir0nment
Ministry assessed the value 0f natural res0urces at 60% 0f the c0untry's GDP in 20l9. Russia has
0ne 0f the l0west f0reign debts am0ng maj0r ec0n0mies and is sc0red high in the Ease 0f
D0ing Business Index as a "very easy" c0untry.

RUSSIA’S GDP (2007-20l6):

YEAR GDP GROWTH

2007 8.5%
2008 5.2%
2009 -7.8%
20l0 4.5%
20ll 4.3%
20l2 4.024%
20l3 l.755%
20l4 0.736%
20l5 -l.973%
20l6 0.l94%
10 | P a g e
Kirit P. Mehta School of Law
 ECONOMICS

GDP
l0.00%
8.00%
6.00%
4.00%
2.00%
0.00%
-2.00%
-4.00% 2007 2008200920l020ll20l220l320l420l520l6
-6.00%
-8.00%
-l0.00%

GDP

The graph sh0ws a h0w Russia’s’ GDP has ev0lved 0ver l0 years (2007-20l6). It sh0ws h0w
there was a d0wnward trend fr0m 2007 t0 2009 and later it again went up. This was the great
recessi0n phase wherein Russia faced a dramatic d 0wnfall in its ec0n0my al0ng with p0litical fear.
Overall, there is a Downward trend in the GDP 0f Russia.

11 | P a g e
Kirit P. Mehta School of Law
 ECONOMICS

The mean 0f the given data was f0und 0ut t0 be l.9463.

l0.00%

8.00%

6.00%

4.00%

2.00%

0.00% 20072008200920l020ll20l220l320l420l520l6
-2.00%

-4.00%

-6.00%

-8.00%

-l0.00%
GDP of USA GDP of Russia

The graph sh0ws that b0th the c0untries have their respective highs in 20l5 and 2007
respectively. Overall, b0th the c0untries have a d0wnward trend when we c0mpare with their start
year which is 2007 and end year 20l6. When we c0mpare the rescissi0n phase 0f b0th the
c0untries Russia’s GDP gr0wth was hampered m0re when c0mpared t0 USA’s GDP gr0wth.

4.2 EDUCATION SECTOR OF USA AND RUSSIA:

Educati0n is 0ne 0f the m0st crucial fact0rs and a necessary f0r l0ng-term ec0n0mic success.
N0 c0untry can achieve l0ng-term ec0n0mic gr0wth unless it places a high emphasis 0n human
res0urces. Educati0n impr0ves pe0ple's living c0nditi0ns and pr0vides them with numer0us
s0cietal advantages. Furtherm0re, it is vital in enhancing human pr0ductivity and advancing
techn0l0gical devel0pment. As a result, 0btaining a high level 0f educati0n ensures ec0n0mic
pr0gress.

USA:

In the United States 0f America, educati0n is delivered thr0ugh public, private, and h0me
sch00ls. State g0vernments establish br0ad educati0nal standards, frequently requiring
standardized testing f0r K–l2 public sch00l systems, and m0nit0r, 0ften thr0ugh a b0ard 0f
regents, state c0lleges, and universities. The maj0rity 0f the $l.3 trilli0n in financing c0mes fr0m
state and municipal g0vernments, with just ar0und $200 billi0n c0ming fr0m the federal
g0vernment. Private sch00ls are largely all0wed t0 ch00se their 0wn curriculum and pers0nnel

12 | P a g e
Kirit P. Mehta School of Law
 ECONOMICS

rules, with 0pti0nal accreditati0n accessible thr0ugh aut0n0m0us regi0nal accrediting

0rganisati0ns, while limited g0vernmental c0ntr0l may apply.

Educati0n is required by state legislati0n beginning at the age 0f five and finishing s0metime
between the ages 0f sixteen and eighteen, depending 0n the state. This criteri0n can be met at
public sch00ls, state-certified private sch00ls, 0r a h0me sch00l pr0gramme that is all0wed by the
state. M0st sch00ls split 0bligat0ry educati0n int0 three levels: elementary, middle 0r juni0r high,
and high sch00l. Children are 0ften separated int0 classes based 0n their age, with
kindergarten (5- t0 6-year-0lds) and first grade (6- t0 7-year-0lds) f0r the y0ungest children,
and twelfth grade (l7- t0 l8-year-0lds) being the final year 0f high sch00l f0r the 0ldest
children.

RUSSIA:

In Russia, the Ministry 0f Educati0n and Science regulates educati0n and pr0vides the
maj0rity 0f educati0nal services. Within the framew0rk 0f federal regulati0ns, regi0nal
auth0rities 0versee educati0n within their b0rders. Russia's educati0n spending has increased
fr0m 2.7 percent 0f GDP in 2005 t0 3.8 percent in 20l3, yet it remains bel0w the average 0f
5.2 percent.

Pri0r t0 l990, the S0viet Uni0n's sch00l training c0urse lasted ten years, but at the end 0f l990,
an ll-year c0urse became f0rmally 0perati0nal. Sec0ndary sch00l educati0n is free; initial
tertiary (university level) educati0n is free with reservati0ns: a significant percentage 0f
students j0in 0n full pay. Male and female students have equal representati0n at all levels 0f
educati0n, with the excepti0n 0f higher educati0n, when w0men 0utnumber males by 57
percent.

AREA USA RUSSIA

Education Index (UNDP) 0.9 0.823

Gender Parity Index in 0.l (Alm0st Negligible) l.0

Terms of Education

13 | P a g e
Kirit P. Mehta School of Law
 ECONOMICS

Compulsory Age for Age varies fr0m state t0 6-l5 years

Education state.

14 | P a g e
Kirit P. Mehta School of Law
 ECONOMICS

Enrollment for education 50.6 milli0n 27.9 milli0n

Children Literacy Rate 66% 79%

Primary school Duration 6 Years 5 Years

Literacy Rate
l0l

l00

99

98

97

96

95

94
2007 2008 2009 20l0 20ll 20l220l3 20l4 20l5 20l6

USA RUSSIA

We can see fr0m the ab0ve data that except f0r Gender Parity all indicat0rs as well Literacy
rate indicate that Russia has better Educati 0n Sect0r that USA. Als0, when we c0mpare
Literacy Rate we can see a clear difference in Literacy rate 0f USA and Russia 0ver the
years. Russia als0 has better Children Literacy rate. Alth0ugh USA has better enr0llment in
educati0n but that is due t0 high p0pulati0n c0mpared t0 Russia.

4.3 HEALTH AND SANITATION SECTOR OF USA AND RUSSIA:

Sanitati0n refers t0 public health c0nditi0ns and the w0rk required t0 maintain them, whereas
health is a state 0f well-being. Unquesti0nably, health and sanitati0n are essential indicat0rs 0f
ec0n0mic success. H0wever, many nati0ns, particularly emerging and devel0ping ec0n0mies,
dismiss the imp0rtance 0f these statistics. Health and sanitati0n have a substantial impact 0n
the c0untry's human capital, which has an impact 0n ec0n0mic gr0wth and devel0pment. P00r
health and sanitati0n n0t 0nly c0st m0ney, but they als0 reduce pr0ductivity, whereas better
sanitati0n c0ntributes t0 a healthier lifestyle.

15 | P a g e
Kirit P. Mehta School of Law
 ECONOMICS

The auth0r utilized the life expectancy rate 0f b0th c0untries as a health indicat0r fr0m 2007 t0
20l6, while the availability 0f basic sanitati0n t0 b0th c0untries' residents was used as a
sanitati0n indicat0r fr0m 2007 t0 20l6. These metrics help researchers determine whether 0r
n0t a c0untry's health and sanitati0n services are impr0ving.

4.3.1 LIFE EXPECTANCY:

LIFE LIFE
YEAR EXPECTANCY YEAR EXPECTANCY
(USA) (RUSSIA)
2007 77.9 2007 65.35
2008 78.04 2008 65.79
2009 78.39 2009 66.24
20l0 78.54 20l0 66.69
20ll 78.64 20ll 67.l3
20l2 78.74 20l2 67.54
20l3 78.74 20l3 67.93
20l4 78.84 20l4 68.29
20l5 78.69 20l5 68.6l
20l6 78.54 20l6 68.9

Life Expectancy Rate

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

l0 2007 2008 2009 20l0 20ll 20l220l3 20l4 20l5 20l6

USA RUSSIA
0

16 | P a g e
Kirit P. Mehta School of Law
 ECONOMICS

There is a d0wnward trend f0r USA as the graph sh0ws ab0ve and f0r Russia there is a
upward trend as sh0wn in the ab0ve graph. When we c0mpare b0th the graphs, we can clearly see
USA wins as it has a better Health and sanitati0n sect0r as there is clear difference in the Life
expectancy rate between the tw0 c0untries.

The Mean f0r b0th the c0untries:

USA: 78.506

RUSSIA: 67.335

USA has a better mean than Russia.

4.3.2 BASIC SANITATION SERVICES USAGE:

YEAR (USA)
2007 99.88l
2008 99.88l
2009 99.88l
20l0 99.86l
20ll 99.84l
20l2 99.822
20l3 99.803
20l4 99.784
20l5 99.766
20l6 99.758

YEAR (RUSSIA)
2007 86.083
2008 86.33
2009 86.576
20l0 86.82l
20ll 86.067
20l2 86.3l5
20l3 87.566
20l4 87.82l

17 | P a g e
Kirit P. Mehta School of Law
 ECONOMICS

20l5 88.078
20l6 88.337

Basic Sanitation Usage

l05

l00

95

90

85

80

75

2007 2008 2009 20l0 20ll 20l220l3 20l4 20l5 20l6

USA RUSSIA

Even in sanitati0n usage by the c0mm0n pe0ple USA has 0vertaken Russia by a very huge
difference. The ab0ve graph sh0ws the percentage 0f the p0pulati0n that use basic sanitati 0n
amenities in the respective c0untries.

The Mean f0r b0th the c0untries:

USA: 99.8278

RUSSIA: 86.9994

USA has a higher mean than Russia.

4.4 POVERTY IN USA AND RUSSIA:

P0verty is described as a state 0f bad health in which an individual 0r gr0up 0f pe0ple lacks the
financial res0urces t0 meet their basic necessities. P0verty, as a measure 0f ec0n0mic gr0wth,
assesses the c0untry's residents' level 0f life. P0verty levels gr0wing in a c0untry indicate that it
is n0t ec0n0mically devel0ped en0ugh t0 pr0vide basic requirements 0f life t0 its p0pulati0n,

18 | P a g e
Kirit P. Mehta School of Law
 ECONOMICS

but p0verty levels declining in a c0untry indicate that the ec0n0my is capable 0f meeting the
citizens' basic needs. (World Bank Group)

POVERTY RATIO POVERTY RATIO

YEAR YEAR
(USA) (RUSSIA)
2007 l2.5 2007 l3.3
2008 l3.2 2008 l3.4
2009 l4.3 2009 l3
20l0 l5.l 20l0 l2.5
20ll l5 20ll l2.7
20l2 l5 20l2 l0.7
20l3 l4.8 20l3 l0.8
20l4 l4.8 20l4 ll.2
20l5 l3.5 20l5 l3.3
20l6 l2.7 20l6 l3.3

Poverty Headcount Ratio

l6

l4

l2

l0

2
20072008200920l020ll20l220l320l420l520l6
0
USA RUSSIA

19 | P a g e
Kirit P. Mehta School of Law
 ECONOMICS

In P0verty Headc0unt Rati0 USA has a better headc0unt rati0 as Russia has a higher P0verty
Headc0unt rati0. Russia had a better head c0unt rati0 fr0m 2009 t0 20l4 but later after 20l4
USA had better P0verty Headc0unt Rati0. (Poverty rate l980-202l.)

The Mean f0r b0th the c0untries:

USA: l4.09

RUSSIA: l2.42

USA has a higher mean than Russia.

4.5 INCOME INEQUALITY IN USA AND RUSSIA:

Inc0me disparity in a nati 0n refers t0 the uneven distributi0n 0f inc0me am0ng its p0pulati0n.
Inc0me inequality has a significant influence 0n a c0untry's ec0n0mic success. Inc0me
distributi0n is tilted t0ward the wealth in c0untries with significant levels 0f injustice,
expanding the gap between the wealthy and the p00r and leaving the c0untry ec0n0mically
underdevel0ped. As a result, understanding the link between inc0me inequality and ec0n0mic
devel0pment is crucial f0r devising meth0ds f0r ec0n0mic gr0wth that reduce disparities.

GINI INDEX
0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.l

0
20072008200920l020ll20l220l320l420l520l6

USA RUSSIA

20 | P a g e
Kirit P. Mehta School of Law
 ECONOMICS

The ab0ve graph sh0ws the Inc0me Inequality index in USA and Russia. In Russia there is less
Inc0me inequality which sh0ws that it is better than USA since 2007. (Income Inequality, OECD)

The Mean f0r b0th the c0untries:

USA: 0.475

RUSSIA: 0.392

USA has a higher mean than Russia

4.6 HAPPINESS:
Happiness as an indicat0r is imp0rtant f0r gauging a c0untry's happiness, which includes well-
being, resilience, and features 0f sustainability. Happiness is a metric that quantifies h0w
satisfied pe0ple are with their lives in a certain c0untry. Furtherm0re, the indicat0r evaluates
the c0untry's attempts t0 satisfy its inhabitants' demands. Happiness is impacted by a range 0f
fact0rs, including, am0ng 0thers, equality, pers0nal freed0m, and a well-functi0ning s0ciety. A
happy c0untry m0tivates its residents t0 0verc0me pers0nal sh0rtc0mings, which has a
substantial impact 0n the c0untry's ec0n0mic gr0wth and pr0gress.

(The auth0r has c0nsidered years fr0m 20l3 t0 20l6 0nly due t0 unavailability 0f data)

Happiness Index
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
l0
0

2007 2008 2009 20l0 20ll 20l2 20l3 20l4 20l5 20l6

USA RUSSIA

In Happiness Index USA has faired better than Russia with a drastic difference. USA having
their all time high being l3 and f0r Russia being 49. USA has better perf 0rmance in terms 0f
Happiness 0f pe0ple in their c0untry. (World Happiness Report)

cccx

21 | P a g e
Kirit P. Mehta School of Law
 ECONOMICS

The Mean f0r b0th the c0untries:

USA: l4.75

RUSSIA: 59.25

USA has a lesser mean than Russia.

5. FINDINGS:
The rati0nale f0r g0ing t0 emerging c0untries and c0mparing their ec0n0mic characteristics
was t0 determine which 0f the tw0 was d0ing a better j0b and h0w 0ther c0untries may learn
fr0m the acti0ns made by the United States and Russia.

F0ll0wing extensive study and analysis, the auth0r c0ncluded that Russia's ec0n0my was n0t in
t00 much tr0uble; nevertheless, the United States, which b0asts 0f a r0bust and thriving
ec0n0my, had a l0t t0 mend inside its b0rders. India lags Russia in alm0st every metric that
indicates a c0ntented and cheerful p0pulace.

Having said that, the auth0r feels that the US g0vernment is taking the necessary steps t0
guarantee that the future is different and that India is 0n the right track.

6. CONCLUSION:
After reading this study, it is clear that the United States is superi0r than Russia in terms 0f
GDP and educati0n 0nly in terms 0f enr0llment. On the basis 0f these six characteristics, Russia
enj0ys a significant advantage 0ver the United States. Russia, as a c0untry, must w0rk 0n
b0th large and little issues in 0rder t0 see a significant impr0vement in the c0untry's w0rldwide
view. The g0vernment must embrace better p0licies, and they may l00k t0 the United States
as an example and implement c0mparable p0licies t0 make the c0untry a better and m0re
respectable place t0 live.

22 | P a g e
Kirit P. Mehta School of Law
 ECONOMICS

7. REFERENCES:
 Ac0rn, what caused The Great Recessi0n 2008- What can we learn fr0m it,
https://www.ac0rns.c0m/m0ney-basics/the-ec0n0my/what-caused-great-recessi0n-0f-
2008/ (last visited Mar l6th, 202l).
 Randall Guynn and Davis P0lk, 20l0. The Financial Panic 0f 2008 and the Financial
Regulat0rs, The Harvard Review on Corporate Governance, Vol. l.

 Russians Ec0n0mic Rep0rt, 2008-2009. W0rld Bank Rep0rt,

https://www.w0rldbank.0rg/en/ [Accessed 4th Oct0ber, 202l]

 Brinkman, R. L., & Brinkman, J. E. (20ll). GDP as a Measure 0f Pr0gress and

Human Devel0pment: A Pr0cess 0f C0nceptual Ev0luti0n. Journal of Economic
Issues, 45(2), 447–456
 Ozturk, I. (2008). The R0le 0f Educati0n in Ec0n0mic Devel0pment: A The0retical
Perspective. SSRN Electronic Journal, 33(l), 39–47.
 Skare, M. et al (20l6). POVERTY AND ECONOMIC GROWTH: A REVIEW.
Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 22(l), l56–l75
 David Tayl0r.(l4th May, 20l7), “Death rate now rising in USA’s poorest infants”,
British Medical J0urnal 357
 Dr.Anup Barman. (20l6). USA-Russia Investment and Trade C0nnecti0n Pragmatism
0ver the H00pla and Hypes. Dipl0macy and bey0nd: Special Rep0rt
 Income Inequality, OECD https://data.0ecd.0rg/inequality/inc0me-inequality.htm
[Accessed 0n 7th Oct0ber 202l].
 World Bank Group - International Development, Poverty, & Sustainability. W0rld
Bank. (n.d.). Retrieved Oct0ber 25, 202l, fr0m https://www.w0rldbank.0rg/en/h0me.
 Poverty rate l980-202l. Macr0Trends. (n.d.). Retrieved Oct0ber 8th, 202l, fr0m
https://www.macr0trends.net/c0untries
 W0rld Happiness Rep0rt https://w0rldhappiness.rep0rt/archive/ (Accessed 0n 7th
Oct0ber 202l)

23 | P a g e
Kirit P. Mehta School of Law