In the UK, published a book about the social structure of Russian society, which is based on the four waves (1990 to 2016) survey of Russians about their involvement in the middle class. Final conclusion: the middle class in our country has not grown in the past 20 years. Why this is so, says the “Spark” one of the authors of the monograph.Mikhail Chernyshev, the first Deputy Director of the Institute of sociology (RAS FNESC). Recorded by Olga Bilineata book we Finnish counterpart, YUKO Nicolai from the University of Helsinki, prepared by today’s standards for a long time: two years. An article wrote by the leading Russian and Finnish sociologists, specialists in the study of social structure. The book presents a panoramic view of the Russian society, on how the structure is changed, squeezing the fate of people and sending them to the rut of survival, on the one hand, and pushing in the region new opportunities on the other.In Russia you will not see it: it was published in a British scientific publishing house Routledge, as was conceived as an international monograph based on the four waves of joint with foreign colleagues of the project on a common theme: class structure and class consciousness in modern Russia. The findings of these surveys may seem uninteresting to those who are in a hurry to record in the middle class the greater part countrymen, therefore, we appeal to a small stratum of people concerned that important facts and empirical observation.Average and not wasteproject that formed the basis of the book was started back in the 1990s when us sociologist Erik Wright initiated a large-scale study of class structure in developed countries, being able to engage in it, and then Russia. He was interested in how the classes are generated, whom to include in the middle class and why. Time for Russian sociology was vague, and that the project remained even in the good undocumented. However, a second wave of the study (with slightly modified questionnaires) we conducted regularly: in 1997, 2007, and 2016 — jointly with Finnish colleagues. Of course, we don’t have the gift of foresight, but it just so happened that all of our “waves” took place on the eve of major shifts in the socio-economic state of Russian society, whether it is defaulted, the crisis of 2008 or the current recession. So we were able to grab, even at the top, the axial point in the modern history of Russia and to compare their characteristics with similar parameters presented in the study. For our Finnish colleagues, living in a developed welfare state, it was also important “thought experiment”: to trace, is it possible to ensure the peaceful transit of the structure quasisocial States, as the Soviet Union was, in the modern post-industrial society and is it enough for the transit of the reforms that happened we have in the 1990-ies.They, like the vast majority of the population at that time was employed by the government, but possessed of the qualification and, if I may say so, cognitive resources, and, more importantly, attitudes to a higher level of subjectivity and independence from the state (ideological, resource and so on). On the rise was the autonomy of labour: young entrepreneurs (for foreign colleagues, they were representatives of the “old middle classes”) all done at your own risk is sometimes not consistent with the law. Businesses were in search of active employees that are able to influence decision-making and to conquer new markets. By 1997, a new social structure began to crystallize, but in a paradoxical way: as it “ossification” was observed a reduction of what could be described as the radius of subjectivity — level of participation of ordinary employees and even mid-level managers in decision-making. Power in this sense went out of the hands of yesterday’s beneficiaries of the 1990s, it monopolized by some groups of persons (heads of enterprises, regions, etc.). According to a survey of 1997, we have been able to identify a relatively small stratum of respondents who preserved a relative autonomy and independence in decision-making, which constituted at that time about 10 percent of the citizens. Our hypothesis was that the development of market economy, this layer will expand and become a strong force in the country.Paradoxically (and this is one of the discoveries that are made in the study) developed in those years the structure has been remarkably stable, the size stratum of radical reform beneficiaries who have received freedom of action and the opportunity to participate in decision-making, has not changed neither in 2007 nor in 2016. All the same 10-15 percent of the population, as if time has stopped!And this despite the fact that many other sides and aspects of life has varied dramatically. For example, the level of religiosity (we also measured in all four waves) in the first study was of the order of 10 percent, and in 2016, the believers called themselves, 70 percent of respondents. That is, the ideology has changed, some process occurred, but the structure of society is not affected.The main igracka can explain our paradoxical observation? The easiest way is to try to face one of the most controversial concepts of modern sociology, which is the “middle class”. He’s always had problems, because in social science the “middle class” was created not only as a scientific concept, but as the antithesis of the classical ideas of Marxism — thesis of absolute and relative poverty and tieannamu with it the thesis about the ultimate triumph of proletarian consciousness and proletarian ideology. On the “middle class” spoke when it was necessary to send out a signal: here, you have the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, and we are in your Procrustean bed will not fit, we have a special class — average, in which bourgeois and workers are blurred. In Western social science in the 1970s there was a sharp debate around the concept of “affluent worker”, she began with the book of John Goldthorpe. “Successful working” is absolutely not the proletariat, it is in contrast to the latter has broad access to the benefits of the consumer society. It was noted that “middle class”, gradually increasing in size, became the most important player in the political field: from the 70-ies of the last century to win the votes of “middle class” meant to win the election. In the result the main political parties in developed countries were similar to each other, parties of ideological contrast in the usual sense is long gone, since there are no classes, spokesmen for which they were designing. This phenomenon is known as “the society of the middle class”, that is, a society in which “middle class”, it will form a platform to coordinate political and economic interests and, therefore, a General goal-setting. At the heart of this goal-setting is the idea of welfare — economic, social, psychological, which has at the base a high degree of social security, limitations “predatory” tendencies of the market for the sake of preserving favorable for most citizens of social ecology. These common points in the understanding of groups different revealed different sociological schools. There is, for example, the definition of the middle class, which gives the American sociological school, it takes into account financial wealth and “middle class” enlist anyone with the wealth there is, for example truck drivers. And there is the European approach, which is shared, incidentally, is the same Eric Wright, linking the concept of the middle class with notions of ownership, and in a wide sense: property, not only as a tangible asset but as a personal acquisition, intellectual (education), management (involvement in decision-making) and social (involvement in different networks). The logic is simple: to be the representative of the “middle class”, you must have something, besides money, because money volatile product, which, of course, important, but not sufficient for classification of a person in a particular social group. The stability of the group, its reproduction is ensured above all other resources, which remain with the person throughout his working life, which can be purchased, to increase or inherited. Not accidentally, the representatives of the “middle class” are so hard to teach their children, they are looking for good schools, talented teachers, additional training, increasing their chances of future academic career.Irresistible of Barretto: Rootledge / Taylor & Francis GroupЕсли we look at Russian society, using the optics of the first school, they may obtain the information voiced by the head of state shortly before the pandemic: most of our citizens have entered the middle class. Complex mathematical manipulation in this case is not required. We’re just working out the median income of the population (the median is the value which divides the aggregate in half, she had us up to the recent crisis amounted to 18 thousand rubles) and say that everyone who rises above the median, represent the desired social group. One can toughen a method, to raise the bar of entering the “middle class”, increasing it to two median, but in this case, the proportion of the middle class in the population will be significant. You have to understand that by manipulating the numbers this way, we characterize the group that has, first, the majority of low standards of living, and secondly, very different from the inside, divided by level of education, economic sectors, forms of employment. This group has no prospects of becoming a Foundation for a political consensus, the consent about the purposes and prospects of the evolution of society.But if we apply the optics of the second school, you will receive, alas, disappointing data, of which I spoke above: the middle class in our extremely small and virtually not grown since 1997. People participating in decision-making at the enterprise, engaged in intellectual work, investing in education and having high standards of living, we have no more than 10-15 percent. Low and declining share of workers with a high degree of autonomy in work. A related trend that we observed in survey data in 2016, a gradual ingrowth of the Russian middle class in the state apparatus.Quasi, peripherals and colleti results it is necessary to explain, and this explanation is, in our opinion, in the area where the social sphere and the economy with characteristic of today’s trends. In its current state of economy does not provide extensions of those sectors where there is a need for qualified personnel where these personnel can work creatively, applying the acquired knowledge. The data suggests that the promise of the first persons of the state to create 25 million quality jobs in the next decade and remained promises. Our economy is still raw, ask her another vector of development did not happen.At the same time within given structuresparameters of the society is changing, people are trying to adapt. For example, growing mobility of the population: so much so that the projects of “rural Russia” and “Russian small towns” are actually closed, consistently implemented, the policy of the unstoppable shrinking of the population in the major cities. We see how, during an epidemic of policy tightening turned to Russia the negative side, but who could have thought of such long-term consequences when short term promised a lot of benefits: there are even specific calculations, how much more income brings the branch of the Bank if it is located in the capital, and not in a small town. Faster turn, faster manufacturing, less investment in infrastructure — all clear. Another example of the actual mobility of the labour market is a washout East of Russia: it continues, despite all the “far East ha.” During the post-Soviet period (and this too must be noted) in society has varied standards of living and consumption. By 2007, standards of living rose significantly compared to 1997, while employment in the vast majority of the population remained the same — unskilled, dirty. However, with the 2014 standards have again started to decline, they have not yet reached the level of 1990-ies, but dipped significantly.Acute problem in the background of the above: if the middle class we have at all times was not more than 15 percent of the population, who are the remaining 80 percent of the citizens? Optimists see the so-called “periphery of the middle class”, that is, those who are trying to enter the middle class, but for some reason (lack of education, as, for example, workers of sphere of services, or, on the contrary, material wealth as the rural librarian) can’t. The share of the periphery at a different time, something around 30 percent. And the rest is low-wage workers in industry, agriculture and an increasingly large group of pensioners, whose welfare and survival depend directly on the status of the welfare state, the quality and volume of services provided.Another paradox of the Russian social structure, which can not be found in developed countries— the working poor. That is, a person (e.g. a nurse in regional hospital) works tirelessly — he can’t work anymore, and its revenues still do not ensure the maintenance of a stable standard of living.What other processes can be noticed by analyzing the data of the latest wave of polls? Rather negative, which hinder the hope for a “speedy recovery” and the changing social structure of society. For example, in 2007 we noticed that a significant part of the middle class began to actively invest in education for themselves and their children, that is the beginning to buy the services associated with the b��dosim. Today these investments has decreased significantly, people began to live in the moment. And yet, perhaps, one important trend is the group of entrepreneurs: their even in the best years was a little — no more than 5 percent of the population. We did a joint project with China (this was also) and looking at the social structure of the Eastern neighbor, the proportion of entrepreneurs is equal to 10%, and the freedom to do their job significantly reduces the problems of China, associated with rapid urbanization. And, according to recent Russian polls, people who have their own business, in our country only 3%, i.e. their share is at the level of statistical error. Markku Kivinen one of our authors, in the 1990s suggested that in our society there are prerequisites for the formation of the “society of the middle class” that it is “quasi-average class” — people with education, skills, energy, which under favorable circumstances become the basis for human socio-economic breakthrough in the future. Two decades have passed, and we can say: by now realize this fully we failed.
