Сравнительный анализ структурной трансформации потребления в России и Китае

Полный текст

Fundamental modernization in  Russia and China over the last three decades has not been limited to  the economic realm. One of  the most significant results of  the reforms is  the transformation of  the population’s consumption structure, which is  the product of  a  variety of  different factors. In  both countries, consumer behavior was affected by  mostly the same set of  factors; however, the nature, substance and forms in  which these factors manifested somewhat differed, which to  a  considerable degree determines the structural differences in  the population’s consumption. Aside from an  increase in  consumption of  goods and services and shifts in  consumption structure that have had an  increasingly positive effect in  terms of  modernizing industry, technological innovations and social-­economic development, there are still quite a  few consumption features specific to  each country. The joint Russian Chinese research team conducted a  comparative analysis of  the transformation and main trends in  the development of  the population’s consumption structure in  Russia and China under modernization. The Russian side used materials of  the Federal State Statistical Service of  the Russian Federation (FSSS RF) and the Russia Longitudinal Monitoring Survey of  the Higher School of  Economics (RLMS-HSE,  1994–2023). The empirical basis of  the Chinese side consists of  annual reports by  the National Bureau of  Statistics (NBS) and the Chinese Social Survey (CSS; 2006–2023).

Modernization of  consumption in  China and Russia

Although Russia and China entered a  period of  radical reforms from different starting points, in  both countries the main direction for reforms was a  market economy, both countries still go  through a  deep modernization phase, and reforms are implemented by  the government. However, modernization in  Russia and China unfolds in  different ways, at  a  different pace, with different mechanisms and different results, which inevitably affects the consumer sphere. According to  Chinese researchers, after the introduction of  the reform and opening-­up policy of  1978 and until 2012, a  market economy was developing, and the population’s consumption was rapidly growing. Given that in  China, like in  Russia and other former Soviet states, consumption was strongly influenced by  the government, the transformation in  consumption structure was intricately linked to  the modernization strategies implemented by  the state  [22;  23]. The role that consumption played in  economic development was becoming more evident, and the government realized certain measures to  expand the market and facilitate modernization of  consumption. This resulted in  considerable growth of  incomes and consumption, but at  the same increased discrepancies in  consumption between regions and demographic groups [18;  20;  21].

The next stage, which continues from 2012, is  considered a  period of  qualitative development of  consumption. The main distinctive feature of  consumption transformation was a  transition from consuming mainly physical goods to  an  increase in  consuming services, which reflects a  transition from basic consumption for survival to  consumption based on  quality rather than quantity. The demand for high-­quality and diverse consumption has become more apparent. Regardless of  whether we  are talking about housing or  transportation, cultural, healthcare or  recreational services, there is  a  high potential demand  [24]. Over the last decade, together with a  constantly improving and more diverse supply of  consumer goods, there has been a  considerable increase in  consumption of  services and digital technologies.

In China the population’s material prosperity rapidly grows, accompanied by  an  increase in  the number of  people living in  cities and a  decrease in  rural population, which changes traditional consumer preferences. There is  a  significant discrepancy in  consumption structure between urban and rural areas and between social strata. Studies show that urban residents and the middle class have been the main driving force for optimizing consumption structure in  China, and that the tendency towards increasing consumption first originated among the middle class and then slowly disseminating among lower strata  [26]. As  modernization unfolded, including programs for modernizing the village, the impoverished population of  rural areas somewhat caught up  to  the more prosperous urban population. As  a  result, the gap in  consumption between urban and rural areas began to  gradually decrease, and consumption structure changes at  a  faster pace in  the village compared to  the city  [19]. Internal inequality in  urban areas has gradually increased, which is  not the case for inequality in  rural areas  [15].

Unlike China, where reforms were implemented gradually and consistently, maintaining the balance between stability and development, reforms in  Russia were more sweeping and comprehensive, sometimes even chaotic due to  the so-­called “shock therapy” methods. However, despite the enormous costs of  traumatic reforms, the main goals of  the market transition were ultimately achieved. Russian reforms helped to  boost the development of  trade and service sector, which initially turned out to  be  much more potent than in  China, as  many sectors of  the economy critical for the functioning and development of  social infrastructure and for reproducing crucial social resources were in  a  deep crisis. One of  the most significant outcomes of  economic reforms was the transformation of  the population’s consumption structure, the updated version of  which was mostly established by  the mid-2000’s when the transition to  a  market economy was complete. These changes were largely a  product of  the market economy and a  consumer market of  a  type never seen in  the country, and of  production on  a  wider scale, an  increase in  the supply of  new goods and services and rapid development of  digital technologies.

Subsequent years became a  period of  further development, which resulted in  the formation of  the consumer society, transforming the population’s consumer behavior and promoting new consumer practices  [5;  6]. However, the purchasing ability of  the Russian population remains on  a  relatively low level, lagging behind China quite significantly. This can be  explained by  the fact that in  Russia prices are affected by  inflation, high tax rates and other factors, while in  China, there is  a  wide range of  cheap alternative products, which reduces household expenses. Another factor is  different priorities when it  comes to  choosing goods: Russian consumers tend to  purchase more expensive goods compared to  the Chinese  [12]. Overall changes in  the Russian population’s consumption structure have been a  result of  the transformation of  mechanisms for (re) distributing income, saturation of  the consumer market and a  certain decrease in  prices of  non-­food products and services that used to  be  in  short supply, gradual transition to  a  more rational food consumption structure, growing potential and developing infrastructure of  retail commerce, increasing number and expanding functionality of  large commercial enterprises, improved possibilities for leisure and an  broader range of  such services together with a  significantly increased demand for them, rapid development of  information technologies and digitization, increasing popularity of  social practices associated with environmental consciousness and a  healthy lifestyle [7;  9–11].

In Russia, just like in  China, economic inequality that grew during the reforms was accompanied by  exacerbation of  inequality in  many areas of  consumption, which resulted in  that different groups do  not have the same access to  education, healthcare and other social resources. Inequality, reflected in  differentiation of  consumer spending between groups, applies to  almost all categories of  goods and paid services. However, the dynamics of  several indicators of  consumption over 15 years indicates positive qualitative shifts in  the population’s material status and purchasing power, which have affected all income groups with, albeit to  varying degrees. In  China, positive shifts in  consumption have mostly affected the higher income groups, while in  Russia they have manifested most clearly among groups with average income  [8]. Moreover, inequality in  consumption between urban and rural population in  Russia has never been as  pressing as  in  China. This is  largely due to  the fact that modernization in  China differs from modernization in  other countries: its economic system undergoes transformation simultaneously with the social structure, and agricultural, industrial and post-­industrial societies coexist  [16]. In  the last two decades, Russia has made great strides from the time of  emerging “consumer society oases”  [3]  to  the society for which consuming goods and services becomes one of  the main priorities  [4]. Also, there is  a  developing trend towards the convergence of  the city and the village in  terms of  consumption structure, which is  deeply rooted in  history, back to  Soviet times. Since in  recent years there has been a  considerable decrease in  the consumption gap between urban and rural households, increasingly more urban and rural residents share the same orientation when it  comes to  purchasing food and non-­food products.

During the last few decades, Russia and China, just like most countries, have entered a  completely new stage of  development  — rapid proliferation of  information technologies. Informatization and digitization do  not just cause changes in  the realm of  producing goods and services but also determine shifts in  consumer behavior and structure. A  new segment of  consumers has emerged  — the so-­called digital consumers, for whom the Internet is  the primary means of  communication when it  comes to  purchasing goods and services. A  huge role in  the development of  consumption was played by  the pandemic and the associated restrictive measures, all of  which led to  fundamental changes in  the structure of  global demand for purchasing products online and to  the increased use of  digital means of  communication and remote consumption.

Studies show that the Internet use in  Russia and China is  on  a  comparable level: about two thirds of  citizens use it  in  one way or  another, however, Russia has a  higher share of  people who use the Internet to  purchase essential goods and services, which is  largely explained by  Russia being a  more urbanized country. Both in  China and Russia, the Internet coverage in  rural areas is  lacking, which limits rural inhabitants in  purchases through e-­commerce resources. Although China is  a  global leader when it  comes to  e-­commerce, Russia’s e-­commerce sector is  currently the most dynamic and the fastest growing on  the planet  [2]. Digital access is  a  critical factor that significantly affects family consumption: households with a  higher level of  digital access tend to  have a  higher degree of  consumer activity and higher consumer expenses. Advanced Internet users more often gain access to  diversified and comprehensive information pertaining to  consumption and have better knowledge of  resources for purchases and consumption, which allows them to  satisfy their own and their household needs more effectively.

Changes in  the consumption structure   of  the populations of  China and Russia

Consumption is  inexorably linked to  spending money on  essential goods and services, and in  many cases can be  evaluated this way. Structural changes in  the population’s spending can largely be  tracked by  household spending on  certain types of  goods and services. The primary aim of  such expenses that satisfy consumer demand is  personal consumption. The structure of  household spending shows what sort of  needs consumers allocate their funds to,  which goods and services they acquire, and the proportions (structure) of  their spending  [1]. According to  China’s National Bureau of  Statistics, out of  the eight main categories of  consumer expenditure, the ones citizens consider to  be  the most important are food products, tobacco and alcohol, and housing, with the share of  such spending being considerably higher compared to  other categories (figure 1). Also, in  these two categories the most significant changes have occurred over the last quarter of  the century: the share of  spending on  food, tobacco and alcohol dropped from 48% in  1998 to  29.8% in  2023. Such changes prove how significantly the population’s living standards have improved in  China. However, at  the same time the share of  spending on  housing increased from 12.2% in  1998 to  a  peak value of  24.6% in  2020 and dropped to  22.8% in  2023. One of  the most pronounced tendencies of  the last decade has been an  increase in  the consumption of  goods that improve people’s living standards. Thus, the share of  consumer spending on  services (including public catering, education, culture and leisure, medical and other essential services) increased from 39.7% in  2013 to  45.9% in  2019 (its peak). After dipping during the pandemic, this indicator resumed growth and reached 45.2% in  2023.

Figure 1. Dynamics of per capita consumer spending by basic categories of goods in China, 1998–2023 (%)

More detailed analysis based on  the CSS data (2006–2023) showed that categories that account for a  relatively large share and have shown significant changes include food, down payments and mortgages. Thus, spending on  food dropped considerably  — from 36.5% in  2006 to  29.3% in  2023. Conversely, spending on  down payments and mortgages increased from 1.8% to  7.5%. Moreover, for households with such expenses, mortgage payments account for almost half of  consumer expenses. Categories of  consumer spending that account for a  large share of  overall spending but have not changed significantly include healthcare and medical services (not accounting for reimbursements), education and gifts. In  the last 20 years, spending on  healthcare and medical services has remained within the 10%–13% range, with a  slight decrease after the pandemic  — 9.8% in  2023. Spending on  education remained within the 7%–11% range, while spending on  gifts, weddings and other events  — around 7%–10%. The sphere of  culture, leisure and tourism continues to  be  both important and customary: spending on  it  has been consistently low, amounting to  1%–2% in  the last 20 years. Although spending on  culture, leisure and tourism plays an  important role in  improving living standards, in  2023 76.4% of  Chinese households declared that they do  not spend any money on  such services.

People in  China are usually less inclined to  consume compared to  Western countries with highly advanced economies. Both in  China and in  major developed countries, there has been a  decrease in  consumption inclination under the pandemic; however, in  Western countries consumption recovered at  a  faster rate. Highly developed countries typically have better and more comprehensive social security systems, which is  one of  the main reasons for their populations’ higher inclination for consumption. Given that the consumer needs of  China’s population have not been fully satisfied, one might assume that this should result in  higher inclination for consumption. However, there is  a  downward trend despite economic growth, which deserves further investigation. Curiously, in  Russia consumer demand recovered more quickly after the pandemic than in  China.

Chinese researchers use an  analysis model that distinguishes “consumption for survival” and “consumption for development”  [25]: household spending on  groceries, clothing, utility payments, housing, healthcare, financial support for elderly relatives is  defined as  consumption necessary for satisfying family members’ basic needs, i.e., consumption for survival. On  the other hand, household spending on  education, travel, leisure, household appliances, communication and transportation are considered as  consumption for development, aimed at  satisfying future needs for the development of  an  individual and family members. According to  the CSS data, farmers, laborers and members of  the old middle class have a  higher maximum inclination for consuming to  survive, while members of  the new middle class have a  higher maximum inclination for developmental consumption.

To a  certain degree similar trends were observed in  Russia: just like in  China, one of  the most important and noticeable tendencies was a  decrease in  household spending on  food. According to  the RLMS-HSE data, from 1994 to  2014 this indicator dropped from 62.4% to  29.8%, subsequently remaining within 29.3%–30.9% range. But within overall spending on  food, tobacco and alcohol, the share of  such spending turns out to  be  higher compared to  Chinese households, while it  dropped from 40.9% in  2003 to  31.7% in  2023. Despite such a  significant reduction, spending on  food in  the overall structure of  household consumption remained at  a  high level, even given a  considerable increase in  income. The main distinction here is  that in  China the trend towards a  reduction in  household spending on  food was ongoing together with an  increase in  incomes in  the 15 years (except for the pandemic), while in  Russia it  was essentially in  stagnation. This phenomenon is  not inherent to  other countries and is  often referred to  as  the “Russian consumption paradox”. Growing income usually means a  decrease in  the share of  household spending on  groceries and other essential goods, while nutritional structure shifts to  higher quality food. The reasons for this paradox might include, on  the one hand, changes in  prices and a  wider range of  available products; on  the other hand, severe differentiation when it  comes to  the population’s income  [13]. Russia is  still characterized by  a  high share of  food expenses in  the structure of  consumer spending, and the lower the family income the more of  it  is  allocated to  purchasing food. For wealthier groups, possibilities for satisfying new needs broaden, for groups that are impoverished or  of  modest means, despite certain changes in  their structure of  necessities, the main priority is  usually satisfying the need for essential food products.

A decrease in  spending on  food was accompanied by  an  increase in  spending on  various non-­food products and services (figure 2). However, the capacity of  households to  purchase consumer goods and services was limited by  a  considerable increase in  spending on  various mandatory payments (debts, bank loans, insurance, alimony etc.). The share of  spending on  mandatory regular payments showed a  consistent increase from the minimum value of  1.9% in  1998 to  a  peak of  22.4% in  2022, only after the pandemic, in  2023, it  dropped to  17.9%. Such payments constitute the bulk of  what is  marked on  the graph as  “other expenses”.

Figure 2. Dynamics of household consumption structure in Russia, 1994–2023 (on average per member of household, %)

In Russia, just like in  China, an  increasingly more important role in  consumption is  played by  services, which over the last three decades have undergone significant changes. In  the years of  reforms, many new services were introduced, while for certain services demand diminished or  they are no  longer relevant. In  the overall structure of  household expenses, an  increase in  spending on  various services has been the most significant. For instance, from 1994 to  2023, the share of  spending on  recreational services (health resorts, fitness-­wellness, entertainment, education, tourism, sports) increased 2.4 times  — from 7.9% to  19.1%. There was a  particularly significant increase in  spending on  healthcare: from 0.9% in  1994 to  a  peak value of  6.7% in  2018, then there was a  slight gradual decrease to  6.2% in  2023. An  increase in  spending on  healthcare services was determined, on  the one hand, by  Russians taking better care of  their health, on  the other hand, by  an  increase in  consumption of  paid healthcare services. Moreover, payment for healthcare is  a  component of  Russian family budgets of  high priority, regardless of  the level of  income. The main period of  an  increase in  spending on  utility payments (one of  the most pressing issues for Russian families) was at  the start of  reforms: from 1994 to  2010, the share of  spending on  rent and utility payments increased 4.6 times  — from 2.2% to  10.2%, with it  subsequently remaining within the 9.4%–102% range. Today these expenses remain among the most burdensome in  the consumer structure of  Russian households; however, they do  account for a  considerably lesser share than in  China.

In both countries, similar tendencies were observed in  the shares of  family spending on  clothing, footwear and durable goods. Given an  increase in  spending on  services, such expenses showed a  gradual decrease. Thus, in  Russia the share of  household spending on  clothing and footwear had grown from 7.3% in  1993 to  9.1% in  2000 and then slowly declined to  a  minimum value of  4.3% in  2023. As  for the share of  household spending on  durable goods, after increasing from 3% in  the 1990s to  a  peak of  5.4% in  2007 it  gradually dropped to  2.3% in  2023.

Structural shifts in  consumption   for different groups in  China and Russia

A crucial factor that affects the population’s consumption is  income, and with median income as  the benchmark respondents in  two countries were divided into four groups with different income levels: low income strata  — 0.75 of  median income or  lower; lower-­middle  — 0.75–1.25; upper-­middle  — 1.25–2 median incomes; high income strata  — 2 median incomes or  more. According to  the Chinese study, the most significant changes were registered in  the high-­income group: from 2006 to  2023, per capita spending increased 4.5 times (from 11393.5 to  51602.1 Yuan), which is  more than for other groups. Then come the low-­income group and the group with upper-­middle income: their increase in  per capita household consumer spending amounted to  4.4 and 4.3 times, respectively.

In the high-­income group, the share of  spending on  groceries was consistently the lowest, while on  healthcare, medical services and education  — the lowest but approaching the share for the group with upper-­middle income. At  the same time, their share of  spending on  household appliances, furniture and other durable goods, culture, leisure and tourism turned out to  be  much higher compared to  other groups. Higher share of  these constantly growing expenses (consumption for development) indicates the improved living standards: in  2023–15.8% of  spending for high-­income households (figure 3); since 2006  — an  increase of  8%, which is  the highest among all income groups. In  2023, the upper-­middle income strata’s share of  spending on  development consumption was 13.1%, which indicates the group’s high consumer potential. Conversely, in  the low-­income group, this spending was the lowest and was growing the slowest: from 2006 to  2023, an  increase of  3%.

Figure 3. Dynamics of consumer spending for development in China, 2006–2023 (%)

The presented data shows that insufficient consumption continues to  be  a  pressing issue for a  considerable part of  the Chinese population. Therefore, further efforts to  improve living standards for lower-­income groups are considered a  key task and the primary course for improving the population’s well-­being. This issue is  closely related to  an  equally important issue of  increasing the size of  the middle-­income group, which will lead to  an  increase in  consumption and to  further evolution of  consumption structure. This can be  explained by  the fact that, compared to  other income groups, this group is  more flexible in  consumption, has higher purchasing power and a  greater desire to  make purchases  [14;  17].

The Russian data also reveals considerable differences between income groups in  consumption, although the primary are differences in  spending on  food, which have only increased over the years. Thus, in  1994 the share of  spending on  food for the low-­income group was 1.3 times of  that of  the high-­income group (67.9% and 53.3%, respectively), but in  2023 the difference increased 1.7 times (36.6% and 22.2%). Moreover, there was a  continuous increase in  by  how much the high-­income group surpassed all other households in  the share of  spending on  mandatory regular payments: in  the 1990’s, this share was very low and barely varied by  income group, in  2023 it  amounted to  22.5% for the high-­income group, 20.5%  — for the upper-­middle, 15.1%  — for the lower-­middle, and 13.6%  — for the low-­income group. Given simultaneous positive dynamics, the consumption structure of  high-­income groups is  characterized by  a  higher share of  spending on  recreational services and a  lower share of  spending on  utility payments (figure 4): from 1994 to  2023, spending on  recreational services increased from 10% to  21.7%, while for the low-­income group  — from 6.9% to  16.4%. In  2023, per capita spending on  recreational services in  the low-­income group was 20% of  the same expenses for the high-­income group. The share of  continuously increasing household spending on  healthcare remained on  almost the same level for all income groups (about 1% in  1994 and 6% in  2023). At  the same time the share of  household spending on  utility payments grew in  the high-­income group from 1.8% in  1994 to  7.2% in  2023, while in  the low-­income group  — from 2.3% to  10.2%. However, the dynamics of  spending on  clothing, shoes and durable goods was inversed.

Figure 4. Dynamics of household spending on certain types of goods and services in Russia (on average per member of household monthly; %)

Overall consumption priorities for different income groups have been shifting to  spending on  healthcare, cultural-­educational, tourism, health-­resort and fitness-­wellness services. These tendencies are to  a  greater extent typical for wealthier groups: in  the most impoverished groups’ consumption, the highest share of  spending is  usually on  utility payments, while in  the wealthiest groups  — on  paid services associated with investment in  human capital. These differences are reflected in  both quantitative indicators and the quality of  services.

According to  the Chinese studies, urban households spend more on  development consumption (a  higher share of  overall budget), but these discrepancies gradually decrease. For instance, in  2013 the share of  spending for developmental purposes among rural population for the first time got up  to  10%, and since then has consistently been on  an  even higher level, while the share of  the same spending for urban households has gradually declined since 2019. By  2023, the difference between urban and rural households in  spending on  development decreased to  a  minimum (12.5% and 10.7%, respectively).

In recent years, the share of  rural households’ spending on  food, tobacco and alcohol, healthcare and medical services was higher, while on  housing  — lower compared to  urban residents: in  2023, the share of  spending on  food, tobacco and alcohol, and housing amounted to  32.4% and 20.3%, respectively, while for urban residents  — 28.8% and 23.7%. At  the same time the share of  villagers’ spending on  healthcare and medical services rapidly growth  — from 4.3% in  1998 to  10.5% in  2023, compared to  a  decrease in  case of  townspeople  — from 11.5% in  1998 to  a  record minimum in  2013, after which there was an  increase to  8.6% in  2023. Consumer spending on  education, healthcare and medical services, and on  material support for parents was on  a  constant rise, accounting for about one fifth of  all expenses of  Chinese households. These consumption categories can be  characterized as  collective spending or  social provisioning. A  high level of  development of  corresponding public services and social welfare would result in  a  considerable reduction in  personal expenses. However, the fact that over the last 20 years the share of  spending on  such services saw a  negligible decrease indicates that government services and social welfare are still underdeveloped. Urban residents have greater access to  social welfare and public services, since the corresponding share in  collective consumer spending is  considerably lower than for rural population.

In Russia, just like in  China, the consumption structure of  urban households compared to  rural ones is  more in  line with satisfying people’s needs when it  comes to  preserving and improving health and human capital. Today, just like before, urban households allocate a  significantly lower share of  spending to  purchasing food products. However, from 1994 to  2023, spending on  groceries for urban households dropped from 61.5% to  31.4%, while for rural households  — from 70.8% to  34.2%. At  the same time the share of  development spending (on  recreational services) for urban households is  considerably higher: from 1994 to  2023 it  increased from 8.7% to  20.1% compared to  from 4.7% to  14.9% for rural households. These negative discrepancies for rural households are partly offset by  lower spending on  rent and utility payments: from 1994 to  2023 spending on  utility services increased from 1% to  6.3% for rural households (for urban households  — from 2.5% to  10.2%). Compared to  these significant shifts, changes in  the share of  urban and rural household spending on  clothing and footwear were not as  dramatic: for urban households it  decreased from 7.8% to  2.7%, for rural households  — from 5.5% to  4.8%. Even less noticeable but no  less important were changes in  spending on  durable goods: for urban households this share decreased from 4.1% to  2.7%, while for rural households increases from 2% to  2.4%.

***

The comparative analysis of  the structural transformation of  consumption in  Russia and China revealed the most obvious characteristics and relevant trends that determine the country-­specific differences and common features in  the dynamics of  structural shifts in  the population’s consumption under modernization. Since it  unfolds in  both countries, there have been noticeable shifts in  household consumption due to  growing income and spending and to  growing demand for higher quality goods and services. The direction and rate of  shifts in  the structure of  household consumer spending point towards continuous optimization of  consumption models in  both countries, although in  China the intensity of  this process is  somewhat higher compared to  Russia. One of  the most substantial and important tendencies in  China is  the advancement of  consumption models which facilitate a  continuous increase in  consumption for development, while in  Russia the main trend is  an  increase in  spending on  recreational services that improve living standards. In  both countries inequality in  consumption continues to  be  a  pressing issue: consumer spending on  food, durable goods, housing, cultural, leisure activities and entertainment is  still the most differentiating factor. However, Russia suffers more from regional inequality in  consumption, while China  — from inequality between types of  settlements. In  both countries, manufacturers and consumers tend to  prefer digital trade and consumption. It  would be  fair to  assume that future structural shifts in  household consumption will be  linked to  further development of  a  digital economy and increasing significance of  digital consumption.

Об авторах

Полина Михайловна Козырева

Институт социологии ФНИСЦ РАН; Национальный исследовательский университет «Высшая школа экономики»

Автор, ответственный за переписку.
Email: pkozyreva@isras.ru
доктор социологических наук, первый заместитель директора Института социологии по научной работе Федерального научно-исследовательского социологического центра Российской академии наук; заведующая Центром лонгитюдных обследований Института социальной политики Научно-исследовательского университета «Высшая школа экономики» ул. Кржижановского, 24/35, Москва, 117218, Россия; ул. Мясницкая, 20, Москва, 101000, Россия

Ди Жу

Институт социологии КАОН

Email: zhudi123@cass.org.cn
профессор социологии, директор департамента социологии потребления и культуры ул. Цзянь Го Мэнь, 5, Пекин, 100732, Китай

Александр Ильич Смирнов

Институт социологии ФНИСЦ РАН

Email: smir_al@bk.ru
доктор социологических наук, главный научный сотрудник ул. Кржижановского, 24/35, Москва, 117218, Россия

Список литературы

Дополнительные файлы