Open and Latent Unemployment in the Context of the Pandemic

Автор: Soboleva I.V., Sobolev E.N.

Журнал: Economic and Social Changes: Facts, Trends, Forecast @volnc-esc-en

Рубрика: Social and economic development

Статья в выпуске: 5 т.14, 2021 года.

Бесплатный доступ

The specifics of the pandemic crisis and the features of the Russian labor model suggest that the impact of this crisis on the labor sphere may differ from the usual implications of crisis-driven recessions in economic activity, and create new points of vulnerability. The aim of this article is to trace changes taking place in the sphere of employment during the pandemic, to reveal how unemployment, including its latent forms, is spreading, and to identify risk areas that should become the focus of public policy. On the basis of available statistics data from Rosstat and independent sociological surveys, we explain significant discrepancies between the dynamics of objective indicators of unemployment and the extent of people’s concerns related to their perception of this problem; we assess the structure of unemployment and the scale and dynamics of its latent component. The study has shown that at the peak of the crisis, latent unemployment exceeded open unemployment by more than three times. Unemployment, either in an open or latent form, has affected every fourth worker. Nevertheless, in general, in terms of the dynamics of macroeconomic proportions, the labor sphere is coping with the challenges of the crisis: the sector of large and medium-sized enterprises managed to maintain almost pre-crisis levels of employment, open unemployment remained within socially acceptable limits, a dangerous surge in latent unemployment was overcome by the beginning of the third quarter of 2020. At the same time, serious shifts have taken place in the usual structure of redundancies: highly qualified and educated workers employed in key sectors of intangible production, who felt confident in the labor market and got used to the stability of their socioeconomic situation, have been considerably affected. Geographically, the crisis has had the most serious impact on large cities with a significant amount of middle class population. This aggravated the acuteness of people’s perceptions of the crisis and jeopardized the preservation and reproduction of elite segments of national human potential.


Pandemic crisis, labor model, employment, open unemployment, latent unemployment, working hours, risk zones

Короткий адрес:

IDR: 147234815   |   DOI: 10.15838/esc.2021.5.77.11

Список литературы Open and Latent Unemployment in the Context of the Pandemic

  • Cevik E.I., Dibooglu S., Barisik S. Asymmetry in the unemployment–output relationship over the business cycle: Evidence from transition economies. Comparative Economic Studies, 2013, vol. 55, pp. 557–581. DOI:10.1057/ces.2013.7
  • Blinova T.V., Rusanovskii V.A., Markov V.A. Assessment of the reaction of cyclical unemployment to the economic decline and recovery growth in Russia. Ekonomicheskie i sotsial’nye peremeny: fakty, tendentsii, prognoz=Economic and Social Changes: Facts, Trends, Forecast, 2020, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 184–198. DOI: 10.15838/esc.2020.6.72.11 (in Russian).
  • Dreger Ch., Gros D. Lockdowns and the US unemployment crisis. IZA Policy Paper. Institute of Labor Economics (IZA), 2021, no. 170.
  • Dunn A., Grasso T., Saunders C. Unemployment and attitudes to work: Asking the “right” question. Work, Employment and Society, 2014, vol. 28(6), pp. 904–925. DOI: 10.1177/0950017014529008
  • Mavromaras K., Sloane P., Wei Z. The scarring effects of unemployment, low pay and skills under-utilization in Australia compared. Applied Economics, 2015, vol. 47(23), pp. 2413–2429. DOI: 10.1080/00036846.2015.1008762
  • Egdell V., Beck V. A capability approach to understand the scarring effects of unemployment and job insecurity: Developing the research. Work, Employment and Society, 2020, vol. 34 (5), pp. 937–948. DOI: 10.1177%2F0950017020909042
  • Brandt M., Hank K. Scars that will not disappear: Long-term associations between early and later life unemployment under different welfare regimes. Journal of Social Policy, 2014, vol. 43(4), pp. 727–743. DOI: 10.1017/S0047279414000397
  • Grzegorczyk M., Wolff G. The scarring effect of COVID-19: Youth unemployment in Europe. Bruegel Blog, 2020, November 28. Available at: (accessed: August 20, 2021)
  • Achdut N., Refaeli T. Unemployment and psychological distress among young people during the COVID-19 pandemic: Psychological resources and risk factors. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2020, vol. 17(19), no. 7163. Available at:
  • Lambovska M., Sardinha B., Belas J. Impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on youth unemployment in the European Union. Ekonomicko-manazerske spektrum, 2021, vol. 15(1), pp. 55–63. DOI: 10.26552/ems.2021.1.55-63
  • Truc T.M., Button P., Picciotti E.G. Early evidence on the impact of COVID-19 and the recession on older workers. NBER Working paper, 2020, June, no. 27448. DOI: 10.3386/w27448.
  • Crawford R., Karjalainen H. The Coronavirus Pandemic and Older Workers. The Institute for Fiscal Studies, 2020, September. Available at: (accessed: August 20, 2021).
  • Kapelyushnikov R.I. Rossiiskii rynok truda: adaptatsiya bez restrukturizatsii [Russian Labor Market: Adaptation without Restructuring]. Moscow: GU VShE, 2001. 309 p.
  • Gimpel’son V.E., Kapelyushnikov R.I. The Russian labour market model trial by recession. Zhurnal Novoi ekonomicheskoi assotsiatsii=Journal of the New Economic Association, 2015, no. 2, pp. 249–254 (in Russian).
  • Sobolev E.N. Remuneration of labor in the Russian economy: Trends and challenges. Vestnik Instituta ekonomiki Rossiiskoi akademii nauk=The Bulletin of the Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2018, no. 5, pp. 79–96 (in Russian).
  • Adams-Prassl A., Boneva T. et al. Inequality in the impact of the coronavirus shock: Evidence from real time surveys. Journal of Public Economics, 2020, vol. 189, no. 13183. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104245
  • Popova D.О. Preliminary estimates of changes in inequality under the influence of the pandemic and fiscal policy measures. Analiticheskii byulleten’ NIU VShE ob ekonomicheskikh i sotsial’nykh posledstviyakh koronavirusa v Rossii i v mire=HSE Analytical Bulletin on the Economic and Social Consequences of Coronavirus in Russia and in the World, 2020, no. 10, pp. 53–61 (in Russian).
  • Hershbein B.J., Holzer H.J. The COVID-19 pandemic’s evolving impacts on the labor market: Who’s been hurt and what we should do. Upjohn Institute Working Paper, 2021, vol. 21, no. 341. Available at:
  • Dalton M., Groen J.A., Loewenstein M.A. et al. The k-shaped recovery: Examining the diverging fortunes of workers in the recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic using business and household survey microdata. Covid Economics, 2021, no. 71, pp. 19–58.
  • Galasso V. Covid: Not a great equalizer. Covid Economics, 2020, no. 19, pp. 241–255.
  • Guven C., Sotirakopoulos P., Aydogan U. Shortterm labour market effects of COVID-19 and the associated national lockdown in Australia: Evidence from longitudinal labour force survey. GLO Discussion Paper, 2020, no. 635.
  • Campa P., Roine J., Strömberg S. Unemployment inequality in the pandemic: Evidence from Sweden. CEPR Discussion Paper, 2021, July, no. DP16330. Available at:
  • Simpson W. Is Basic Income within Reach? Building the Case amidst Progress and Poverty. Palgrave Macmillan, 2021. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-66085-7
  • Gentilin U., Grosh M. et al. Exploring Universal Basic Income: A Guide to Navigating Concepts, Evidence, and Practices. Washington, DC: World Bank, 2020. Available at:
  • Bobkov V.N., Odintsova E.V., Chernykh E.A. Universal basic income as regulator of improving the standards and quality of life: Statement of the problem and introduction to analysis. Narodonaselenie=Population, 2020, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 13–27. DOI: 10.19181/population.2020.23.1.2 (in Russian).
  • Lischuk Е.N., Kapelyuk S.D. Employment of young professionals in the Russian labor market: Key trends. Ekonomika truda=Russian Journal of Labor Economics, 2019, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 1079–1092. DOI: 10.18334/et.6.3.40871 (in Russian).
  • Mooi-Reci I., Ganzeboom H.B. Unemployment scarring by gender: Human capital depreciation or stigmatization? Longitudinal evidence from the Netherlands, 1980–2000. Social Science Research, 2015, vol. 52, pp. 642–658. DOI: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2014.10.005
  • Baskakova M.E., Soboleva I.V. Employment quality and observance of labour rights in the sphere of small business. Rossiya i sovremennyi mir=Russia and the Contemporary World, 2017, no. 2 (95), pp. 57–74 (in Russian).
  • Madsen P.K. How can it possibly fly? The paradox of a dynamic labour market in a Scandinavian state. In: Campbell I.P., Hall J.A., Pedersen O.K. (Eds.). National Identity and the Varieties of Capitalism: The Danish Experience. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2006. Pp. 321–355.
  • Bekker S., Mailand M. The European flexicurity concept and the Dutch and Danish flexicurity models: How have they managed the Great Recession? Social Policy & Administration, 2019, vol. 53 (1), pp. 142–155. DOI: 10.1111/spol.12441
  • Mailand M. The common European flexicurity principles: How a fragile consensus was reached. European Journal of Industrial Relations, 2010, vol. 16 (3), pp. 241–257. DOI: 10.1177/0959680110375134
  • Noja G.G. Flexicurity models and productivity interference in C.E.E. countries: A new approach based on cluster and spatial analysis. Economic Research–Ekonomska Istraživanja, 2018, vol. 31(1), pp. 1111–1136. DOI: 10.1080/1331677X.2018.1456356
Статья научная