The paper addresses various types of socio-economic solidarity practices within the framework of strengthening/expanding civil society in Russia. It aims to advance in conceptualizing the nature of the new solidarity practices and the factors fostering their development based on the comparison of the new practices with the traditional (monetary donations, volunteer labor, donating clothes and other articles to the people in need) and socio-political ones. The new practices are represented by the socially responsible (ethical) consumption whose nature remains unclear, thus far. The data of a representative empirical survey (2014 N=2000) are provided indicating the degree of an overlap, common and specific factors that affect the development of various solidarity practices. The analysis shows that new socio-economic practices are more likely to evolve on the basis of the traditional ones, thereby expanding the traditional solidarity channels. The paper concludes that the new socio-economic practices are by nature less pro-social as compared to the traditional ones. The argument is made for the need to create additional conditions fostering the development of the new practices through the concerted efforts of authorities, corporate, nongovernmental organizations and the media.
The article reveals some of the intricate relationships between urbanization at different stages, human horizontal (spatial) and partial vertical mobility, and changing ruralurban communities. After reviewing the key ideas and schools of urban and urbanization studies, the authors examine the conceptual diversity and many-sided nature of deurbanization as a spatial, societal and cultural-mental transformation. The controversial discourse of the latter, which often implies opposite approaches and phenomena, such as social lifting or downshifting, is stressed, along with the greater role of individual decisions. Stronger social and spatial links between cities and rural areas in the globalizing world manifest themselves in the accelerated formation of the rural-urban continuum and through the growing recurrent spatial mobility of people. Russia’s incomplete urbanization and polarization of its socio-economic space have created two massive opposite flows, i.e. the centrifugal seasonal dacha deurbanization and the centripetal labor migration of Russian villagers and small town dwellers towards large cities. The two streams are interrelated, e.g. temporal urban work, and the lodging of Russian otkhodniks instead of resettling, leading to the prolongation of the life of peripheral localities where their families stay. This habitability, in turn, facilitates the dacha development of small settlements. The article considers the reasons for “guest work” in Russian cities and the variety of dachas, as well as their impact on both urban and rural lifestyles. Mass movements of vacationers and workers and their two-house lives, sometimes balanced in time, complicates the knowledge of how many people actually live and work in the countryside, in small and big cities. This is a serious obstacle to the adequate maintenance and development of Russia’s spaces, since local budgets are designed for permanent population alone – which in many places is partially true.
The article analyzes the role of the natives of former republics of the USSR in the formation of the Russian population. Despite the fact that Russia is second only to the United States, by the number of foreign-born in its population, only a small part of them are real international migrants. Among 11 million people only not more than a third came to Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union and they are not repatriates and members of ethnic groups traditionally resident in Russia. Revealed not only scale of resettlement (relocation), but also migrant stock (the number of migrants) who remain to live in place where they settled after a long time. So the vast majority of immigrants from Belarus, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Ukraine, Abkhazia and South Ossetia lives in Russia for more than 10 years continuously, and it is difficult to distinguish them from the locals. Besides that, the article revealed features of the transformation of major socio-demographic characteristics - ethnicity, the age structure, level of education.
социальная интеграция, наука, Образование, бизнес, Интегрированный комплекс, условия интеграции
The paper presents comparative analysis of Russian employees’ participation in decision making in domestic and foreign-owned companies operating in Russia. The authors focus on the issue of high and low power distance cultures interaction inside organisations. Empirical data of the research were collected from 623 professionals and managers from 17 private companies in 3 Russian cities. The authors state that the “background influence” of high power-distance Russian culture provides general low participation rates of Russian employees in decision making. However, the phenomenon of cultural convergence is observed in foreign-owned companies: low power distance culture of owners and top-management of these companies provides higher employees’ participation rates; their employees are more motivated towards participation and more proactive. Foreign-owned companies are also perceived by their employees as being more “democratic” than domestic ones