The paper continues analysis of the results of panel study in Belgorod region’s rural areas conducted in 2000 and 2013. Both papers are integrated in institutional theoretical and methodological approach to the scientific analysis of social transformations. We underline the conceptualization of social institute as a system of social actors’ interactions. This system provides the sustained self-perpetuating satisfaction of the most important needs and interests of the actors. We differentiate institute as a social phenomenon, superindividual in its nature, from institutionalization as a process providing sustainability of social interactions. We give particular attention to the fact that human behavior is based on the institutionally determined logic thus being shaped by institutional demands, compelled, instead of voluntary, motives, and control. The basic condition of institutes’ efficient functioning is their guaranteed ability to enforce desirable behaviors. Taken together, social institutes regulate basic interactions in the most important spheres of life such as exchange and distribution of economic resources as well as power relations thus composing social organization of the society as a whole. The purpose of this paper is to take a more nuanced view of social institutions while highlighting inconsistencies and contradictions in the process of their change. An empirical observation of the transitional institutions’ development is presented. It is argued that these institutions are internally inconsistent and contradictory. Transitional institutions’ inconsistencies are manifested, first, in oppositions between “old” (traditionalistic and paternalistic) and “new” (competitive and achievement-oriented) social practices. Second, confrontation between “positive” (independence and personal responsibility) and “negative” (moral and legal nihilism) social norms underlying these practices is observed. We conclude by suggesting a theoretical model and propositions that will address unanswered questions and should provide a more complete understanding of transformative social institutions and their development.
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