In this article neo-weberian approach is applied to the study social work as a professional group. In the analysis of the inter-regional survey data, the features of economic, cultural and powerful components status of the profession in their relationship have been revealed. The study has shown that the model of social work is characterized by low economic resources and low prestige, considerable autonomy of workers but limited sphere of influence, the predominance of institutional and informal mechanisms of regulation. Consideration of normative and legal context of professionalization suggests that the practical competences prevail over analytical and managerial skills for the most of the specialists taken part in the survey, however many of them also have experience in structural social work.
A survey investigating the risk of falling into poverty in Russia shows that after improvements in the level of well-being of the Russian population during the past decade, the situation has grown relatively worse during the current economic crisis and for the poor the situation will continue to worsen at an accelerated pace.
Understanding of ethnicity as socially designed marker of distinctions, which organizes and explains character of social interactions is presented in the article. Constructing assumes process of a categorization and attributing of senses to observable signs, their fixing as an ethnicity. At the same time, the theoretical concept of ethnicity isn't strictly built. There are difficulties with a clear understanding of criteria of effectiveness of ethnicity as social construct. Search and analysis of the mechanisms underlying activation of social nature of ethnicity are important. Allocation of social fields and the practices in which ethnicity is used as social construct are also important. Possible solution of the problem of operationalization of ethnicity as a social construct is offered in the article, and also social fields in which construct functions are shown.
Drawing upon an All-Russia Representative Survey (2017, N = 2000), this paper is the first to present the data on the actual and potential involvement of the population in separate collection of household waste (currently a purely voluntary practice) as well as in various socio-economic practices aiming to reduce (directly or indirectly) the generation of waste. These practices include a reduced use of plastic bags; the purchase of goods in recyclable/dissolvable packaging, with minimum or without any packaging at all; donating unnecessary items in good condition to others; buying exactly the amount of food that is needed so as not to throw away the excess; avoiding excessive consumption or buying items that are not really necessary; reducing energy and water consumption. Various practices are shown to appeal differently to different groups of Russians. A binary logit regression model is applied to assess the connection between involvement of individuals in various practices and their socio-demographic characteristics, education, income, type of the population center, specific value orientations as well as membership in associations, participation in NPOs and civic initiatives. The study uncovers positions with regard to separate collection of household waste (a key practice to alleviate the waste issue) held by participants (and nonparticipants) in other socio-economic practices. The identified fragmentary nature of the present-day array of practices aiming to alleviate the waste issue in Russia as well as the degree and conditions of their intersection with separate collection of household waste underscore the importance of developing a more comprehensive policy in this sphere that would expand entry channels and possibilities for various population groups.
This paper examines the relationship between socioeconomic status (SES) and physical health in childhood. Social factors of health inequalities are a prominent research topic of study for recent decades. Results suggest that social and economic factors - including economic resources, living conditions, education, life style - effect health outcomes. These findings are verified for many countries regardless of health measurement. And it is true across lifespan from birth and childhood to adulthood. It is especially worth paying attention to children’s health because bad health conditions in childhood are connected with double burden. Additionally to family expenditures on health care and medicines due to child’s disease, poor health leads to lower level of human capital in future.
This paper uses data from Russian Longitudinal Monitoring Survey to estimate the role of social and economic factors in children’s health in Russia. Analysis was performed on a subsample of 0-6 year olds. The information about children's parents and households as a whole was matched to this subsample. Several health indicators were tested – permanent health perception (5-point scale), chronic conditions, and transitory health state. The results of the study show that all types of child health measurement are significantly connected with maternal health state and some mothers’ behaviors, especially alcohol consumption. The findings provide no support for hypothesis about the crucial role of main socioeconomic factors in health –family welfare, maternal education, mother’s age, marital status, and employment status. These results provide evidence that there is a huge difference between key social factors of children’s health in Russia and most other countries. It is supposed the reason is that Russian socioeconomic groups are not likely to be so different in behaviors, attitudes toward health life style, access to qualitative medical care as social classes in other countries.
Results of a study related to conditions for development of an ethical consumption are systematized. Empirical study data permitted to clarify levels, attitudes and factors of involving student youth in ethical consumption practices. By means of regressive analysis we found out that a basic role in real inclusion of young Russians in ethical consumption is played by economic, value activity and institutional factors. A conclusion is made about potentialities and expansion conditions of this practice in Russia.
The article outlines problems arising in the process of social transformations in social entities and fixed both in general sociological theories and in the sociology of the organization. The problem of compatibility of social organization and social changes is emphasized. The organizational development (OD) as a special type of social change is described in detail. Following aspects are considered: a) differences in views on the sources of social change; b) difficulties associated with understanding the processes of organizational development; c) fundamental differences in the significance and interpretation of these problems in different theoretical models of organizational development.
The given paper aims to present results of the posterior multidimensional approach to social stratification of contemporary Russian society. The proposed model of social structure employs the Weberian concept of life chances which has been operationalised over the map of 24 binary items measuring positive and negative privileges of individuals and their households in four major domains of life: economic stability and security, industrial relations, educational and medical opportunities, and economic consumption. Drawing from the Monitoring data conducted by the Federal Center of Theoretical and Applied Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences in 2015 and 2019, the study offers a 5-class model. The predictive validity of the final model has been proved by cross-validation procedures which returned 96.2% of correctly predicted posterior probability of class membership for individuals; standard errors for items’ probabilities did not exceed 0.05. The detected five socioeconomic classes seem to be vertically integrated and include non-working population normally excluded from the relation-based approach to class analysis. These are as follows (2015 and 2018): disadvantaged (lower) non-economic class (23 and 22%, correspondingly), unprivileged (lower) property class (19 and 17%), two semi-privileged classes – lower middle class (16 and 14%) and true middle class (29 and 34%) – and advantaged (upper middle) class (13%). The obtained results reassess the popular viewpoint that big classes no longer exist in industrially advanced societies (Grusky & Weeden, 2008) and highlight importance of noneconomic forces for multidimensional stratification of Russian society in the post-transition era.