Сберегательное поведение россиян в 2009-2013 гг.
The main problems of modern Russian households are analyzed in the article. The factors affecting the behavior of the Russians in the financial markets are considered. The features of the Russian labor market transformation are revealed.
The objective of this paper is to find out which banks the Russian households trust more and whether they really prefer to keep their savings in the institutions that they verbally prefer. Russian households traditionally trust state-controlled banks and particularly the national champion (Sberbank) at the expense of privately-owned deposit-taking institutions. The gap in the level of trust between state-controlled banks and all others remains deep and unlikely to disappear. There is little hope in self-sustaining business of private banks that would rest on the inflow of private savings at reasonable rates. The policy implication of this finding is that the authorities will face the dilemma of ever increasing the level of private savings protection under the deposit insurance scheme (as well as the resulting public costs) in order to keep the smaller market participants afloat, or give up on the idealistic drive to artifically enhance competition in the household savings market.
In the domain of personal savings, Russia today is characterised by three main features: quite modest amount of accumulated money (total amount is equal to 12 per cent of GNP; per capita amount of saving is equal to -300), great social and geographical unevenness of savings' distribution (not more than 20 per cent of adult population have got any savings; one-third of all savings are concentrated in Moscow), and a very big portion of money saved in cash form (half of the total amount of savings). A strong propensity to save in cash is determined for the most part by a strong and growing mistrust in private banks and securities. Theoretically speaking, the amount and distribution of savings make it possible to transform into investment about 30-40 per cent of cash savings (-7-10 billion). But mistrust in private financial instruments and structures makes it unreal at least in a short-run prospect.
Several approaches to the concept of fatherhood present in Western sociological tradition are analyzed and compared: biological determinism, social constructivism and biosocial theory. The problematics of fatherhood and men’s parental practices is marginalized in modern Russian social research devoted to family and this fact makes the traditional inequality in family relations, when the father’s role is considered secondary compared to that of mother, even stronger. However, in Western critical men’s studies several stages can be outlined: the development of “sex roles” paradigm (biological determinism), the emergence of the hegemonic masculinity concept, inter-disciplinary stage (biosocial theory). According to the approach of biological determinism, the role of a father is that of the patriarch, he continues the family line and serves as a model for his ascendants. Social constructivism looks into man’s functions in the family from the point of view of masculine pressure and establishing hegemony over a woman and children. Biosocial theory aims to unite the biological determinacy of fatherhood with social, cultural and personal context. It is shown that these approaches are directly connected with the level of the society development, marriage and family perceptions, the level of egality of gender order.
This article is talking about state management and cultural policy, their nature and content in term of the new tendency - development of postindustrial society. It mentioned here, that at the moment cultural policy is the base of regional political activity and that regions can get strong competitive advantage if they are able to implement cultural policy successfully. All these trends can produce elements of new economic development.