The book analyzes the results of many years of national sociological research characterizing the attitude of Russians in General and their various social groups to the results of twenty-five years of post-Soviet transformations. At the same time, the author highlights the gains and losses of the country's population over the years of reforms, considers the objective and subjective well-being and disadvantage of Russian citizens, the dynamics of their ideological and political preferences. Special attention is paid to the socio-cultural changes that have occurred during the years of reforms, the formation of Russian identity and the role of religion and religious organizations in society. The analysis of everyday life of Russians living in megacities and provinces, the life world of rural residents is given. The influence of the historical past of the country on the mass assessment of Russian transformations is considered. For sociologists, political scientists, philosophers, economists, historians, psychologists, lawyers, as well as students and postgraduates of the relevant specialties, employees of legislative and Executive authorities.
This paper is devoted to the theory of economic development elaborated by Deirdre McCloskey. We analyze the main statements of the theory and identify its specific features that distinguish it from other similar approaches, which consider institutions and culture as reasons of economic development. We show that key differences of these approaches are based on varied comprehension of institutions and different views on humans and human motivation. It is concluded that McCloskey’s theory copes better with explanation of huge shifts in levels of per capita income, associated with the modern economic growth, while neoinstitutional approach is preferable when we try to explain differences in per capita incomes in similar countries, which have already moved to the modern economic growth stage. We outline a possible way of synthesizing the theories of McCloskey and Joel Mokyr, which focus on ethical and epistemic changes respectively.