Natalia Grigorieva[1]
Social Situation in Russia: the Social Quality Approach
All progresses are reactionary
If the Man falls to the ground
A. Voznesenskiy
Social policy issues under the conditions of modern reforms in Russia including the necessity to activate the civil society and provide the legal framework for the new social order are not only of a great importance but complicated in both theoretical and practical sense. The main problem, however, is that today in Russia the social policy measures are aimed to minimize social functions of the state whatever social rhetoric’s are used. For example, the so called “national projects” -- the new initiatives in social policy-- are aimed to solve acute but yet very concrete social problems. Besides it seems that the choice of the priorities themselves was made more on ad hoc basis without undertaking solid conceptual efforts. As a result these projects are quite fragmentary in nature and lack the systemic approach. And, even worse, they lead away from the development of a comprehensive social policy strategy based on serious analysis of what are the real social needs of the Russian society.
First, it looks like in the modern situation the minimum set of social functions, that the state is ready to undertake is really what the Russian society needs!
Second, in Russian literature there is no discussion on the model of social policy as well as the on theoretical approaches, that foreign researchers are developing. In reality no social policy model exists in its pure form. The specific characteristic of the modern situation that we witness in other European countries is the convergence of ideological foundations, forms and methods rather than development of competing models of social policy. And the most important in this process is the achievement of the sustainable development, sustainable social quality for all, or at least for the majority.
Third, the theme of social solidarity seems to gradually disappear from the context of Russian social policy while concentration of wealth leads to the strengthening of influence of social groups that poses considerable material and financial recourses. The rest has to play the role of observers. As a result the two polar society is being developed in Russia, when the gap between the rich and poor is growing, the difference becoming so great that people stop to understand each other. In such a situation one can hardly speak about social solidarity. The state, on its part, undertakes the role to compensate “the losers”, but to the minimum social standard only.
Therefore, if one tries to answer the question that A.Walker asks in one of his works, namely which way for the European social model; minimum standards or social quality, for Russia taking into account recent social policy developments the answer would be quite clear – minimal social standards. Why so?
Social policy in Soviet Russia: a brief introduction
By now in Russia there is no tradition of social policy research in its classical western understanding. As it lacks comprehensive character many problems just skip from the view of the researches. For example, political and ideological aspects of social policy are not well studied. As a result social policy research is practically limited to the analysis of the current reforms.
One of the serious flaws of the modern Russian social policy theory is the fact that the Soviet social policy is a definitely under researched area. Even more the existing research is quite biased ideologically and contains a lot of stereotypes.
The Soviet welfare system of 1980s was not established once and for all immediately after the 1917 October Revolution. It had a long history of development in coverage, types and value of benefits, organisation and financing. The Soviet social policy should not be looked at as something static. It was modified ideologically and organisationally though measures undertaken to adjust welfare system to new challenges were not always successful.
The formation of the social protection system began with introduction of unemployment and occupational sickness benefits for all employees (unemployment benefits were abolished in 1930 to be re-established in 1991) and then of non-occupational sickness benefits. Disability pensions for the elderly were instituted in 1922, old age pensions for workers in several industries in 1928, their coverage extended in the following decades to include even clerical staff. One of the major events was the 1956 pension reform aimed at raising pensions. In 1964 and 1970 peasants-members of collective farms were incorporated into the centralised social security system (pensions, sick leave, maternity benefits, etc.). The payments were rising as well. By 1980s a wide range of social benefits covering major social risks was granted to population.
The first social protection regulations enacted as early as December, 1917 were based on the Bolsheviks' comprehensive social insurance programme. Then the role of the state budget gradually increased and in the late 1930s social insurance funds were incorporated into the state budget. Since that time until the early 1990s social benefits were financed through the state budget in accordance with the centralised plans. It should be noted that no research has been made to study this period of the Russian history to answer the very simple question: why after attempts to introduce social insurance the Soviet state opted to budget financing of the social sector. (Grigorieva N., Chubarova T. 2004)
The public social funds were earmarked in the budget as obschestvenniye fondi potrebleniya -- public consumption funds (PCF). Social benefits and services, first of all social security, education and health, used collectively and considered by the state most important, were financed from these funds. PCF accounted for about one third of people's income; the ratio between cash and in- kind benefits was approximately 50/50.
It should also be mentioned that the Soviet social policy was founded on a relevant system of values based on ideas of collectivism. It is from this standpoint that the system of individual’s values was formed when collective activities were considered as the main sphere of individual’s self realisation. The logic chain started with the social rights (to work), inseparable with social responsibilities (the necessity to work) and guarantees of their implementation (full employment) that was fixed by law. The individual success was evaluated first of all by its contribution to the development of the society.
The social and economic reforms that followed were accompanied by the dramatic social costs, which to a large extend low income people had to pay. The promotion of the ideology of individualism as opposed to collectivism and social solidarity has led to the formation of a feeling of indifference towards other people as any success or failures are now attributed to people’s personal qualities to which society at large has play no role.
Current Situation
In today’s Russia, a conflict is growing between the principles of the social state stipulated in the Constitution and the real social policies that are a combination of socialist principles which still persist, especially in the minds of senior citizens, and purely liberal approaches and institutions. The transformation of the country’s social and economic system has had its full effect on the citizens’ well-being determining their everyday life. In this situation a comprehensive question has to be put to which no answer is yet provided: was it at all possible to switch from socialism to capitalism without paying the disastrous costs and losing the social gains made over the previous – Soviet – phase of the country’s development?
Many experts associate the said social costs with the pressure put upon Russia’s economic and social policies through socially conditioned credits granted to the Russian government by foreign organizations in the late 1980s – early 1990s. The World Bank and other international institutions have contributed to the present situation, though they justify their actions by saying that “the World Bank’s policy met no opposition from the reformers who at that time played the leading role in the government” (D. Symes, 2004). An external factor would never have worked without internal conditions favourable for that, and in the beginning of political and economic reforms the social protection of Russian citizens was considered among side issues but not among those of high priority. A myth was born that the market economy would resolve all the problems, and everything that had been an integral part of the social past was bluntly disclaimed. Due to that, the social structures grew unstable and the prospects of the majority of the population unclear. As a result, “in Russia it was decided not to climb the mountain slowly and laboriously when it was possible to make just one large leap. And if that had to be done at the cost of the whole segment of population unable to adjust to such leaps it was considered acceptable” (D. Symes, 2004). This lead to a dramatic differentiation in positions and interests of the social groups within the country and a change in the system of values in the society as a whole, which at the microlevel manifested in shaping different values within different groups. Due to the difference in value systems, for some individuals the “people” means these individuals themselves plus a dozen of their dear ones, for others it is some specific group of the population, and for still others it is the whole Russian population. Everyone is right in their own interpretation, but it is important to understand which value system the power adheres to. But this is a question there is no answer to. “The power is oriented towards the liberal state, and the word ‘socialism’ is feared even by those actually using socialist approaches in their reform formulas. Civic courage is needed to admit that the word ‘socialism’ is as acceptable as ‘capitalism’, and that it is already a sign of the former “ when we consider it necessary to master the mechanisms for crisis management at the level of the government” (S. Glinkina, 2005) The fundamental task is to specify the forms of the state’s participation in resolving social issues. The background of this process is an entanglement of various factors, which can be divided into three major groups having specific characteristics:
v reducing the financial basis under crisis is crucial from the point of view of choosing the forms and methods of the social policy;
v revising the conceptual basis of the social policy, including recognition of the right to private property and personal social responsibility, which is connected with promoting market economy values;
v organizational mechanisms become more important in the situation where a mixed welfare economy is being developed, charitable and private organizations start working in the social sphere along with public institutions, and a tendency towards the decentralization of social activities and shifting the burden of resolving social problems to the level of local authorities and individual citizens increases.
According to the Russian Constitution, the RF is a social state, with all that this implies.
1. The Russian Federation is a social State whose policy is aimed at creating conditions for a worthy life and a free development of man.
2. In the Russian Federation the labour and health of people shall be protected, a guaranteed minimum wages and salaries shall be established, state support ensured to the family, maternity, paternity and childhood, to disabled persons and the elderly, the system of social services developed, state pensions, allowances and other social security guarantees shall be established. (Constitution of Russian Federation, 1993)
A number of Russian politicians and experts believe that acknowledging the role of the state as a vital factor in correcting social inequality characteristic of a market economy is to be regarded as a stereotype of the past. Referring to the experience of the advanced European countries they argue that seeking to create a social state leads eventually to protectionism, dependency and decline in economic efficiency. Reducing social expenditures and adopting the American model of social development are among the solutions they offer.
As for the American model, based on individualism and personal social responsibility, it is a result of a long process of the country’s historical development. For this reason, adopting it directly without taking into account the current situation in Russia, where the state was dominant in the social sphere for 70 years, seems not very productive. At the same time, the experience of Western European countries those are closer to Russia in terms of the social policy guidelines are of apparent interest to the latter. As for the experience of Asian countries, it is little known and studied.
The processes of economic and social transformation condition significant changes in the objectives, instruments and methods of the state’s social policy being one of the priority areas for the governmental regulation of the social life. On the one hand, social crises occurring in the course of transformation (lower living standards, increased poverty, unemployment, etc.) require closer attention to be paid to the social development. On the other hand, an effective state is an important precondition for successful economic reforms in Russia. It is to be kept in mind that speaking about the role of the state in Russia we first of all mean its political leadership. What is relevant now is not the state’s withdrawing from its welfare functions but making more efficient use, both in organizational and financial terms, of the resources the society allocates to meet the social needs.