INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURE & TRADE--NEWLY INDEPENDENT STATES AND THE BALTICS UPDATE March 31, 1997 Approved by the World Agricultural Outlook Board ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURE AND TRADE is published five times a year by the Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20005-4788. WRS-97-S1. Please note that this release contains only the text of INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURE AND TRADE--NEWLY INDEPENDENT STATES AND THE BALTICS UPDATE--tables and graphics are not included. Subscriptions to the printed version of this report are available from the ERS-NASS order desk. Call, toll-free, 1-800-999-6779 and ask for stock #WRS, $26/year. ERS-NASS accepts MasterCard and Visa. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Newly Independent States and the Baltics Update NOTE: The "Newly Independent States" (NIS) refers to the 12 countries that comprised the former Soviet Union. The Baltic nations (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) are not included in the NIS as they were not recognized by the U.S. as part of the Soviet Union. The 12 NIS countries are the Russian Federation, Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakstan, Moldova, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan. Although this report focuses on changing food consumption patterns in Russia, it reflects similar changes in the other countries of the NIS and the Baltics. Russian Food Consumption: Emerging Demand for Quality Since 1992 Russian households have adapted their pattern of food consumption to higher prices and decreased real income. Future growth in food demand will focus on quality, rather than on restoring pre-reform levels of consumption that featured poor quality foodstuffs. The Russian government lags behind in establishing a system of general nutrition education, targeted food assistance, and other functions of a modern state usually found in a market economy. Introduction Beginning in the mid-1960s and continuing through the 1970s and 1980s, the Soviet Union established production and consumption targets and pursued agricultural and food policies that greatly distorted the mix of foods consumed. By the late 1980s budgetary support for agriculture and the food system exceeded 10 percent of GDP. At the same time, state retail prices for bread and other staples were kept at levels established in the 1950s, and prices for animal products were frozen at 1962 levels. Despite increased production, these policies created economic shortages, in the sense that at existing prices, the quantity of foodstuffs demanded by consumers exceeded available supplies. Russia remained a "shortage economy" until price liberalization in 1992. (Retail prices for bread and some other products are still controlled by regional authorities in some parts of Russia.) Official statistics show Russian food consumption improved substantially since 1960, particularly in achieving the Soviet target or norm for meat consumption (figure 1). But there was also much hoarding and waste that inevitably accompany shortage. Quality in its many dimensions also suffered. To Russians this was revealed when free trade in foodstuffs accompanied price liberalization. Imports of foreign high-value product (HVP) foods have now risen to unprecedented levels. After several years of decline, real personal income and consumption may increase in 1997. Such growth would be largely due to the drop in inflation from triple-digit levels to 26 percent last year. Lower inflation is reducing the speculative behavior of households, which have begun stocking fewer staples now they are assured that shelves will remain filled with goods at stable prices (table 1). Lower inflation is also reducing the speculative behavior of banks and investors. Investment is beginning that over time should help restructure the shrunken domestic food industry according to market signals. What adjustments have been going on in Russian food consumption? How adequate is it nutritionally? What direction will food consumption take under a normal, growing economy? These are the questions this report addresses--in large part from the perspective of information from the Russian Household Budget Surveys (box 1). Box 1: Measurement in Transition The measurement of food consumption in the Newly Independent States (NIS) is in transition. Traditionally, consumption equaled available food supplies minus exports, the so called "disappearance" method. This approach is deteriorating, with trade and private production widely thought to be undercounted. When fundamental relationships (such as waste ratios, which were high under central planning) change, disappearance data do not capture trends very well. As a result, Household Budget Surveys (HBS), which ask consumers to report how much food they actually buy, are increasingly relied upon to measure consumption. The Russian HBS now include approximately 37,000 urban and 12,000 rural households. The HBS data have their own shortcomings. The main problem is that the HBS are not scientific surveys based upon a national sample frame. Critics maintain that the HBS miss households with the highest and the lowest incomes. The number of households included in the Goskomstat HBS has been expanded to include pensioners living alone who had not been previously surveyed. However, critics point out that expansion and replacement of households have damaged the scientific validity of conclusions from "longitudinal" (over a period of time) comparisons. Some of the observations in this report are based upon longitudinal HBS comparisons, and some on cross section HBS comparisons (e.g., urban vs rural). Unknown biases in either are possible. In addition, taxes are known to be underpaid and Russians are likely to underreport income in any survey. End Box 1 Adjustments in Consumption Despite problems of measurement, a comparison of food consumption in 1990 and 1995 shows clear change. Over this period, retail food prices for a fixed basket of 19 basic goods rose over 1,800 times, while money incomes rose only about half that amount. Consumers have made substitutions in line with relative price changes. Moscow's Federal Center for Economic Analysis has expressed price rises in terms of how many kilograms of a commodity an average Russian monthly income will buy. In these terms prices have increased the most for fluid milk, butter, and frozen fish. Compared with 1990, a month's salary in 1995 would buy only 34 percent as much fluid milk, 44 percent as much butter, and 39 percent as much frozen fish. Consumers can still buy 70 percent as many eggs. Table 2 indicates that the share (in caloric terms) of eggs in the average diet has declined relatively less than that for dairy and fish. Meat consumption has fallen, and the mix of meats consumed has changed considerably, with pork decreasing the most, and beef and poultry the least. A month's income could buy 70 percent as much beef in 1995 as in 1990, but much less pork, and actually more poultry. Because poultry had relatively little budget subsidy, pre-reform prices were distorted so much that chicken meat in 1990 cost 75 percent more than the highest priced "Category I" beef. Now, under the influence of low world prices for imported leg quarters, this price relationship has been reversed. Although prices for bread and other products made from grain have risen at about the same rate as dairy prices, bread and other grain-based products have captured an increased share of total consumption. (Previously, bread was practically a "free good.") Potatoes and vegetables have also become more important, as has vegetable oil, which substitutes for animal fats. The decline reported in table 2 for the share of fruit consumption is suspect. The use of disappearance data to compare consumption before and after reform has been discontinued, partly because the post-reform decrease in waste at stages before retail makes those comparisons invalid. But, estimates based upon HBS purchases that do not recognize a decrease in subsequent waste at home may also be flawed. The increased volume of fresh fruits and vegetables available at retail is one of the most salient facts of the post-reform period. Fresh fruit and vegetable prices have risen only moderately now that their production and marketing are largely in private hands. The opening of the economy to foreign trade and appreciation of the ruble in real terms have increased the variety of fresh fruits available to consumers, and made imported fruit more affordable. For example, a month's salary bought only 69 kilograms of citrus fruit in 1990, versus 90 kilograms in 1995. Is Current Food Consumption Adequate? There are acknowledged dietary problems in Russia, particularly among the poor who are unable to adjust their diets to new prices and incomes. Russia's official estimate of the number of Russians with incomes below the poverty line dropped from about 26 percent to 22 percent in 1995 (box 2). However, a gloomier portrait is presented by the Russian Longitudinal Monitoring Survey (RLMS), which also provides detailed information on dietary performance. During the past year dietary indicators were mixed, though the February 1997 RLMS report says "changes are approaching levels at which they may impact vulnerable groups unfavorably." The RLMS is a cooperative survey done by Russian and foreign survey research and nutrition experts that has monitored the economic and health status of Russia's population since 1992. The RLMS is based on a national sample frame. It captures, for example, poor persons who do not receive pensions and are not included in the Russian HBS. Results derived from the most recent survey in October 1996 indicate that the number who were poor rose 20 percent from a year earlier, from 29.5 to 36.3 percent of the Russian population. The RLMS collects information on dietary intake via a 24-hour dietary recall. For each person, the survey also measures a Body Mass Index (BMI) which indicates energy deficiency or excess. The RLMS found good news in that the incidence of "stunting" (chronic undernutrition) of children under 2 years old has declined constantly from a peak of 16.3 percent in December 1994 to 8.3 percent in October 1996. Stunting of children aged 2 to 6 fell from 11.1 percent to 6 percent in 1996. The incidence of "wasting," a measure of acute malnutrition, was not a major problem among children. Among adults under age 30 the incidence of being underweight increased 44 percent between 1992 and 1996. At the same time, the incidence of adults over 30 being overweight has steadily increased. (All these are World Health Organization classifications.) The RLMS found that by October 1996 the total dietary energy from protein intake had fallen just below the 10-percent level recommended by the WHO. In 1990, over 42 percent of the Russian food supply was in energy from fat, making the Russian diet one of the richest in the world in terms of meat and dairy consumption. The downturn in fat consumption has been viewed by RLMS investigators and the Russian Institute of Nutrition (RIN) as a healthy development, given health problems associated with excessively fatty diets. In 1995 the percentage of fats in total energy of the elderly reached the 30-percent level recommended by WHO. However, by October 1996 the percentage of fat in the diets of all age groups had fallen below 30 percent. Box 2: The Russian "Thrifty Food Plan" The food basket depicted in table 3 is a modification of one created as the basis for the Russian poverty line income established by law in 1992. The poverty line income is calculated as 1.33 times the cost of this basket, because the Russian poor spend about 75 percent of their income on food. The food basket was derived from WHO/FAO recommended daily allowances (RDA's) of essential nutrients for various individuals based on age, sex, and activity level, as modified for Russia by the Russian Institute of Nutrition (RIN). Table 3 reflects an average basket, derived by weighting food plans determined for these groups. RIN food composition tables were used to select individual baskets, but like USDA's Thrifty Food Plan, which is used as the basis for the U.S. poverty line, the RIN food basket is not the minimal-cost nutritious diet. (In 1994 prices, a "scientific diet" consisting of only a very a small selection of foods would have cost only 70 percent as much as the RIN basket.) Rather, the RIN food basket takes into account cultural patterns, or what low-income Russians actually eat, modified to select the least expensive foods that also assure minimal recommended daily requirements. In 1995 the RIN raised its recommended caloric intake to 6 percent above the WHO level by increasing consumption of grain products. Eight alternative food baskets have been developed, incorporating economies of scale in household size and adapted to regional prices that vary widely because of Russia's inefficient markets. These baskets cost less and, if adopted, would reduce the measured incidence of poverty. Identification of at-risk groups of the "super poor" (often single-parent families with many children) has helped target social protection measures, including child allowances and pensions. The government created the poverty line to improve targeted assistance. End Box 2 Possibilities for Improved Diets Through Better Information Recommendations for a thrifty, but adequate, average annual food basket formulated by the Russian Institute for Nutrition are presented in table 3. Per capita meat consumption by the 10 percent of Russian families earning the lowest incomes in the HBS has been falling. However, in the first 9 months of 1996 their per capita meat consumption still exceeded by 30 percent the 26.6 kilograms in the RIN food basket. This indicates that the budgets of these poor have room for better nutrition. Overall, Russians consumed only 13 percent of the pulses (peas and beans) recommended by the RIN. Pulses cost only 20 percent as much as the average sausage product, and pasta only 25 percent as much. But, according to Russian food composition tables, a kilogram of pulses contains equivalent energy and a third more protein than the average Russian sausage product. Pasta is another desirable product, containing 18 percent more calories and only 25 percent less protein. Both pulses and pasta have virtually no fat. The average Russian sausage product has 255 grams per kilogram. (The average kilogram of Russian pork at retail has 299, beef 83, and poultry 96 grams of fat per kilogram.) Differences in Rural and Urban Incomes and Consumption Rural people in the HBS consumed more food per capita than urban people, largely because they produced the food themselves or received it as in-kind payment for labor on farms. According to 1995 HBS data, rural households consumed 26 percent more calories than urbanites (2,715 vs. 2,158 kilocalories/day per person). Compared to urban consumers, rural people consumed 50 percent more milk, 12 percent more meat, and 6 percent more eggs per capita. However, purchases accounted for less than 20 percent of meat consumed, only about 7 percent of milk, 30 percent of fruit, 2 percent of potatoes, and less than 60 percent of the flour consumed by rural people. While rural food consumption is higher, it is also seasonally more variable than urban consumption. This is especially true of total meat, vegetables, and fruit. Figure 2 and table 4 show HBS unit price data and shares of purchases for four major meat types in rural areas, all Russian cities, and in Moscow. Urban households pay more than rural households for every type of meat. Retail prices for animal products are now lower in the countryside than in cities. This reverses the pattern of the late Soviet era, which failed to establish a rational production and marketing system for livestock. Because of very large urban subsidies, farm prices in the 1980s were higher than state retail prices (implying negative farm-to-retail price spreads). This policy caused slaughter animals to be bid away from the cooperative processing and trade network that operated in the countryside without subsidies. However, by the mid-1970s, the state, by controlling wages, had artificially equalized the money incomes of farm and industrial workers (despite the fact that rural labor productivity was lower). It was common for rural people visiting cities to purchase cheap meat (usually easily transportable sausages) to take home. The Soviet livestock system heavily emphasized production of smoked sausage (kolbas), which minimized the need for an expensive infrastructure for producing and distributing chilled or frozen meat. Likewise, dairy production heavily emphasized butter fat extraction. Over 60 percent of the protein in milk was wasted or fed to animals. Current rural per capita money incomes are officially one-half those of urban households, although it is suspected that rural residents do not report significant income from selling food products. Discontinuation of earlier financial relationships between urban and rural areas and delays in establishing commercial finance have idled much of traditional food procurement and processing. The current relationship between cities and many rural areas can be characterized as primitive "egg and butter" trade. The introduction of normal market commerce may never replace the income that state subsidies once provided certain rural people. Large rural regions are in for significant long-term restructuring that will influence changes in rural demand for products of a more modern food industry for some time to come. Among these regions are the central and non-black earth areas that have specialized in dairy. Income Growth To Induce More Demand for Quality The decline in Russian real personal income bottomed out in 1996 although real GDP fell 6 percent last year. Although it is very early and estimates vary widely, personal income is expected to grow in 1997. Desired data on consumption by detailed product are not available for this report. However, available HBS data indicate that even when incomes return to pre-reform levels, they will not lead to pre-reform levels of animal products consumption, but rather to increased demand for higher quality foods. Figure 3 indicates that 1990 per capita meat consumption was high relative to the Russia's per capita GDP. (The line in figure 3 is obtained by regressing per capita consumption against per capita GDP for 44 market countries.) Subsidy policies made meat livestock products (including most meats) relatively cheap compared not only to substitute foods, but also to non-food goods (including imports), which have now become available as alternative purchases. A. V. Suvorov's calculation of the expenditure elasticity for sausages (0.37) means that as total food expenditures grow, sausage will account for a diminishing share of food expenditures (box 3). The expenditure elasticity for "meat and poultry" indicates that this category is close to having a constant share of all food expenditures. ("Meat and poultry" includes poultry, pork, mutton, beef, wild game, and two categories of delicatessen or semi-prepared meat.) Box 3: Pioneering Russian Demand Study Based on HBS Dr. A. V. Suvorov of the Russian Academy of Science's Institute of Forecasting has pioneered regression analysis of Russian food demand, using cross section, time series data from the Russian HBS. He found that in 1994-95 total real food expenditures increased 0.66 percent for each 1.0-percent increase of total real expenditure on goods. Next he calculated expenditure elasticities for particular food commodities. Given the inflationary period and the limitations of his data and analysis, the exactness of his estimates may be questioned, but the rankings for individual products are still of interest. Suvorov's expenditure elasticities show the degree to which the expenditure on a particular food commodity increases as total food expenditures increase. More specifically, the elasticity is the ratio of the percent change in expenditure on the commodity divided by the percent change of total expenditure on food. When the expenditure elasticity for a good is less than 1.0, it means that as total food expenditures increase, the share spent on that good declines. An elasticity greater than 1.0 for a good means the share spent on that good increases. An expenditure elasticity equal to 1.0 means that the share of expenditure on that particular good is unchanged as the total expenditure on food changes. Expenditure Elasticities LOW NEAR UNITY milk products .29 meat and poultry .93 potatoes .31 canned fruit 1.00 sugar .32 vegetable oil 1.09 kolbas .37 cheese 1.10 eggs .44 spices & salt 1.13 MODERATE HIGH cereals & pulses .61 candy 1.29 bread .62 canned fish 1.32 canned meat .66 canned vegetables 1.41 fish .78 fresh fruit 1.44 fresh vegetables 1.66 A. V. Suvorov, "System of Forecasting the Structure of Population's Expenditures," Problems of Forecasting, 1997. End Box 3 Other HBS data reveal that higher income households pay higher than average prices for aggregate categories of fruit, vegetables, dairy products, and meats. Higher unit prices indicate more out-of-season purchases, greater preparation, and higher quality. A growth in total food expenditure that leaves constant the share spent on meat and poultry can be explained by consumers paying higher prices for better quality with little or no increase in the quantities purchased. HBS data show that the relatively high income households that consumed at least 60 kilograms of meat annually in 1994 managed to maintain this level in 1995. However, a comparison of households in the very top 10 percent of the income distribution in 1994 and 1995 shows that per capita meat consumption actually fell from over 100 kilograms (223 pounds) to 82 kilograms (table 5). Consumption of dairy and eggs stagnated, while vegetables and fruit consumption increased 28 percent and 10 percent. High income Russians appear to be headed towards diets more typical of the United States and Western Europe. If the change in diet of higher income people in the HBS represents a movement towards healthier diets, the gap between actual consumption and RIN's food basket presented in table 3 may serve as a guide to future consumption for the population as a whole. Items highlighted in table 3, as well as products noticeable among foreign imported HVPs, include beans, pasta, lean meats, skim milk and other low fat dairy products (such as yogurt), vegetables and fruit, quality canned, frozen and dried fruits and vegetables, margarine, vegetable oils, and frozen fish. Implications for Domestic Production, Investment and Trade Growing demand for improved quality indicates a need for more investment in farm-to-retail activities. The current system of agricultural production that central planning encouraged, which emphasizes maximizing output, is not well-suited to respond to the desire for better quality. However, in tandem with development of an efficient domestic food industry and/or factors limiting imports of foreign HVPs, there is opportunity for domestic farm production to increase faster than food demand. This requires that Russian agriculture respond to a new set of signals. Farm production of commodities suitable for proper storage, processing, and marketing is needed, as is more attention to seasonal demand. (Seasonal state farm prices for livestock products were eliminated in the early 1970s; thereafter their prices were constant throughout the year!) Recovery of domestic pork production depends upon the development of grain marketing and feed industries, but probably also upon some replacement of the traditional Russian lard-type hog by lean meat breeds. Russian poultry meat consumption is of special interest to the United States, which exported $913 million in poultry meat to Russia in 1996. Imports are roughly half of overall Russian poultry consumption. Imports were even more important as a share of poultry consumption in cities like Moscow and Petersburg. Leg quarters, which face a retail price discount when sold to U.S. consumers, account for the greatest share of imports. Other poultry products from the United States, like giblets and poultry hot dogs, are also important. In Moscow in the fall of 1996, leg quarters imported from the United States sold for 10,500-11,000 rubles per kilogram (about $1.00 per pound), versus 15,500 rubles per kilogram for a domestically produced, plucked and eviscerated whole bird, and 35,000 rubles for the same bird roasted and smoked. Some vendors emphasized that the fat had been trimmed from the leg quarters they were selling. A major question is whether Russian consumers purchase poultry leg quarters because of a basic preference or primarily because of low price. If the latter, spending on leg quarters may have an elasticity in response to future increases in income and food expenditures that is considerably lower than the 0.93 calculated for a group of eight submeat types that includes poultry. Figure 2 shows that in the first 9 months of 1996, poultry was less expensive relative to other meats in cities than in rural areas. The share of poultry meat in total urban meat purchases is also higher than in rural areas (table 4). However, the difference is not very great. Poultry accounts for 20 percent of total meat sales in cities, versus over 15 percent in rural areas. Poultry meat (at least imported leg quarters) is much cheaper in cities than other meats. But because poultry meat accounts for only 20 percent of meat sales in urban areas, there appears to be a preference for other meats in Russia. The second lesson from figure 2 and table 4 is that future improvements in the chill-frozen meat distribution system that reduce the differential between urban and rural beef and pork prices will also reduce growth of urban poultry consumption. On the other hand, it has been only 6 years since state pricing made poultry so artificially expensive. Poultry is still the cheapest meat and its consumption is still only one-half the quantity specified in the RIN food basket, a level recommended on the basis of nutrition and (1995) price. Preferences for poultry may still be increasing, as diets, recipes, and habits adapt in smaller cities and towns. Higher income elasticity is also anticipated over time for higher quality chicken products, including whole birds, white meat, and better grades of chicken sausage. Changes in Consumption in other NIS Countries While this report has focused on food demand in Russia, similar developments have occurred in the other countries of the former USSR. Figure 3 shows meat consumption in all 15 former Soviet republics in 1990 in relation to their per capita GDP and in relation to meat consumption and income in 44 market economies in the same year. Table 6 shows the parallel decline in livestock product consumption in these countries. There has been some recent recovery in livestock production in the North Caucasus countries and in the Baltics. Post-Transition Role for Government in Consumer Affairs Although the Soviet state's planning of food policy badly distorted production and consumption, the new Russian state could still play a role in consumer and nutrition affairs. The U.S. Department of Agriculture could serve as a model in this respect. Measurement of Poverty. Western agencies--including the World Bank, USAID, and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill--helped Russia establish the methodology for its official poverty line. This methodology, like that of USDA's Thrifty Food Plan, needs continuous reexamination. Targeted Food Assistance. The U.S. Government, including USDA, provided humanitarian assistance during the initial stages of Russian price liberalization. Russian policy makers are concerned about refining safety net programs so that they more efficiently target assistance to the very poor. Targeted safety net programs reduce political pressure to continue or reestablish general controls that slow restructuring. U.S. and other Western successes and failures may be worth Russian study. Nutrition Information. For a long time the Russian Institute of Nutrition was used to justify planning norms rather than to educate consumers. Russia currently lacks a well developed public nutrition information service. This hampers good health and efficient consumer choice. For example, information about the potential harm of excess animal fats, the acceptability of vegetable protein, and beneficial effects of dietary fiber are not widely known or reinforced. Grading and Inspection. Better quality and safer food require an objective scientific role for the state working in cooperation with the private food system. Westerners have noticed that Russian food safety agencies are raising phytosanitary hurdles to foreign imported food (e.g., U.S. poultry meat). Most of the agencies responsible for food certification (RIN's limited certification functions are an exception) are concentrated in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, which has domestic producers' interests at heart. However, the development of democracy has fostered alternative lobbies. The Russian "Grain Union," an association representing grain users (e.g., feed producers, millers, etc.), wants to have grain inspection and certification moved from the Ministry of Agriculture, claiming it has too many conflicts. The "Union of Consumers" advocates better labeling and inspection, but is also an important political lobby for cheap healthy food imports. Economic Analysis of Consumption and Demand. For decades Soviet food prices did not change, and in any case prices did not completely guide production and consumption decisions. There was little reason to study the effect of changing prices and income on consumers' purchases. Consequently, the theoretical and applied study of demand is one of the weakest areas of current Russian economic science. Work on food demand such as that done in USDA's Economic Research Service helps inform U.S. agribusiness. Such analysis is largely missing in Russia and the other Newly Independent States of the former USSR. The division of labor that normally occurs in a market economy between the state and the private market and consumer is still in transition. Its evolution will continue to influence Russian food demand and consumption, domestic production and investment, and foreign trade in food. References Foster, C. and Liefert, O., "From Grains to Meat: New Focus for Russian Ag Imports," Agricultural Outlook, ERS-USDA, January/February 1997. Gray, K., "Soviet Utilization of Food: Focus on Meat and Dairy Processing," in K. Gray (ed.), Soviet Agriculture: Comparative Perspectives (Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1990). Goskomstat R.F. Denezhnye dokhody, raskhody I potreblenie domashnikh khoziaistv rossiiskoi federatsii v 1995 g. (po materialam vyborochnogo obsledovaniia biudzhetov domashnikh khoziaistv) (Moscow, 1995) and various unpublished tables (#6, 7, 10) for 1994 and 1995. Goskomstat R.F. Uroven' zhizni naseleniia rossii 1996 (Moscow, 1996). Manellia, A. I., Goncharova, M.V., et.al., Prodovol'stvennoe obespechenie naseleniia rossii v 1990-1995 godakh. (Moscow: Tsentr ekonomicheskoi kon"iukturay, 1996). Mroz, T., B. Popkin, D. Mancini, E. Glinskaya, and M. Lokshin. "Monitoring Economic Conditions in the Russian Federation: The Russia Longitudinal Monitoring Survey 1992-96." Report submitted to the U.S. Agency for International Development. Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, North Carolina. February 1997. (The RLMS home page on the World Wide Web is http://www.cpc.unc.edu/rlms.) A. V. Suvorov, "System of Forecasting the Structure of Population's Expenditures," Russian in Problemy prognozirovaniia (Problems of Forecasting), 1997. Zohoori, N., L. Kline, B. Popkin, and L. Kohlmeier. "Monitoring Health Conditions in the Russian Federation: The Russia Longitudinal Monitoring survey 1992-1996." (See Mroz, et.al. above.) For further information contact: Kenneth Gray, Newly Independent States and Baltics Team, EAME/CAD, 202-219-0639. END_OF_FILE