The article once again raises the question on historical nature of Russia's development, which was commonly considered within the paradigm of two ways of civilisation development (West-East). Nevertheless an adequate assessment of Russia's way in connection with actual development alternatives is barely possible within this obsolete paradigm. Therefore a new integral-institutional paradigm of civilisation development, which is based on the general theory of institutional transformation, has been promoted. The research focuses on global development principles of civilisation matrices and their projection on Russia' trajectory. The new integral-institutional paradigm opens a new presentation of a social reality through the combination of state, local and global civilisation matrices. The institutional nature of societies is considered as the triune configuration of institutional archetype, institutional nucleus and institutional matrix. The «surrounding reality» is presented in the form of three levels: global spheres, real environments and social subsystems. Thus civilisation development is treated in a new fashion. The global principles are determined on the breakdown of forma-tional, institutional and national axes. The historical development of civilization matrices is regarded through the formation stages, and a new concept of «dual formations» is introduced. Cyclic evolution of institutions of Russia's distributive economy is tracked through historical material. The article also provides the analysis of institutional mechanisms of the typical historical cases, which were natural for certain phases of institutional cycles. Thus a forecast concerning Russia's development and the formation of Liberal Razdatok Economy is done.
This article considers the reasons and consequences of the increased attention from politicians and scholars to the challenges of national and global food security. First, the authors focus on the contradictory definitions of food security in intellectual and ideological debates which determine the development of national and global doctrines of food security (and ‘food sovereignty’ as its critical alternative). Secondly, the authors consider past and present attempts to ensure food security and identify the historical zigzags of food policies in Russia (from the Soviet autarchic policy of food self-sufficiency to attempts to liberalize food security definitions in the 1990s, and the new protectionist and autarchic food security doctrine of the 2000s). The authors also present a range of common indicators of food security, and emphasize that the gross growth in the production of various types of food is insufficient to assess the quality of national food policies. The key indicators of food security include the effectiveness of agricultural production, access to quality food for all social groups, and the potential of consumers to control the issues of national food security. Finally, the authors consider the sociological approach to the study of food security and present data from a series of sociological monitoring developed and conducted by the Center for Agrarian Studies of RANEPA 2015-2017. The analysis identified the ‘double autarchy’ in the responses of respondents: on the one hand, they support the general political course on food protectionism and nationalism (state autarchy), while, on the other, they strive to implement a micro-policy of autonomous food sovereignty (family autarchy) by intensifying household efforts to ensure natural self-sufficiency.
There has been growing concern in the literature about the heterogeneity of modern self-employment. This paper adds to this on-going discussion by investigating the association between different types of self-employed and their characteristics. Our empirical data was collected by means of a standardized online survey, which was conducted in Russia. А Russian-language web questionnaire was hosted on FL.ru, the largest website for Russian-speaking freelancers. It included about 40 items covering a wide range of work and life topics. The survey started on December 12, 2013. Over 8 weeks 16,019 questionnaires were received. For this particular study we excluded from the dataset former freelancers and freelancers who had not yet acquired a contract, and our final sample of current active freelancers included 10,574 respondents. We construct a typology of freelancers which overcomes the limitations of typologies based solely on the current employment status of individuals. To construct these work trajectories we used two main questions: 1. What is your current employment status? 2. What is you vision of your work future in the next five years? Do you believe, you will continue this career, and if so, in what status? At each level we distinguished three employment statuses – “moonlighters” (people who combine freelance with regular employment); “entrepreneurs” (people who run their own business with hired employees besides freelancing); and “genuine freelancers” (people without any alternate sources of income). Combining these two questions allowed us to create a set of nine logically possible types of work trajectories, which were further divided into two classes. The first class includes three groups of professionals who want to maintain their current status in the future and continue as genuine freelancers, entrepreneurs or moonlighters. The second class includes six groups of professionals who are unsatisfied with their current status, willing or planning to change it in the near future. In this paper we further investigate these two groupings with regard to their entrepreneurial capacity and employment prospects.