The phenomenon of corruption is regarded as a quality of the resource-based organization of the state and of the estate social system of present-day Russia. An analogy is drawn between the price of money (bank interest rate) in a market economy and the kickback norm, that is, the share of resources which the recipient of the resources has to give (“kick back”) to the person who distributes there sources. It is stated that it is precisely the kickback that is the motive force of the economic and social development of a resource-based state. The kickback norm is regulated by punitive measures. A mild punitive policy leads to an increase in the kickback norm and stagnation of the resource distribution system. In the final analysis, the contemporary forms of struggle against corruption boil down to a repartition of the market of kickbacks, that is, the replacement of some resource distributing officials with others.
The author offers an analysis of the Russian market theses services.
The efficiency of social reforms in different countries mostly depends on the extent to which they can be accepted by people. Moreover, even if the problems are similar, the reasons may differ, which can lead to fail in applying existing laws of one state to another one. Bribery, as shows the Corruption Perception Index, calculated by Transparency International, is a typical problem for developing countries – that also matches research (Levin & Satarov, 2000; Ilzetzki, 2010) concluding that corruption has roots in socialist regimes and that in recently established political stability instable economic situation leads to growth in crime. The main problem within the scope of this project is to identify the relation between corruption perception and level of trust in the society and to distinguish the differences in factors affecting these characteristics in post-soviet countries. The research discoveres that distrust matters a lot for the problem in Russia and suggests further examining European countries in order to explain the difference in trust.
This paper examines what influences Russian households‟ decisions to save and borrow. We use the 2008 data from the 17th round of the Russia Longitudinal Monitoring Survey (RLMS-HSE). Our results show that the determinants of saving and borrowing are not only those suggested by economic theory but also include psychological and sociological considerations: smarter respondents, who are satisfied with their lives and inclined to help other people, are more likely to save. Those who enjoy stable or improving financial conditions and/or are satisfied with them are more likely to save and less likely to borrow. Financial literacy, a factor cited by institutional theory as positive for both saving and borrowing from banks, lost its significance at the onset of the financial crisis. Household income, suggested by economic theory as a basis for choosing a financial strategy, was found to have much less influence on savings and to have a positive influence on borrowing, confirming the rationing theory rather than intertemporal choice theory. Surprisingly, the fear of job loss does not make people save more, contrary to the precautionary motive.
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.