Wealth in Russia is distributed unevenly. But this “injustice” cannot be corrected by social programs alone.

When the economy is growing and prices for the main export commodity are near historical highs, the welfare of citizens increases. This thought warms the hearts of the architects of Russian social policy. The indicators of real consumption in Russia, which since 2000 has been steadily growing by an average of 10% per year, having already formally exceeded the level of 1990, seem to only confirm that the population is getting out of the hole. From time to time, there are optimistic reports about the activity of the developing middle class - the pillar of the new Russian economy.

Upon closer examination, however, an unpleasant detail becomes clear: economic growth does not change the social structure of society, consolidating and sometimes exacerbating the existing stratification. Moreover, in the absence of structural reforms, positive changes cannot be expected.

In any stable society, membership in the middle class is determined by a combination of three components. Firstly, this is the level of income and a set of material and property assets. Secondly, the level of education and status - official, professional, position in the labor market. Finally, thirdly, self-identification: a person cannot be “assigned” to the middle class if he himself feels poor.

In Russia, as happens in unstable transitional societies, integrity has been violated, and these three signs work in different directions. The educated part of the population, which previously formed the backbone of the middle class, lost what it considered decent jobs and incomes, but retained a sense of social role. And those who earn decent money do not always have a higher education and a solid status in the labor market (for example, a small trader or a “shuttle trader”). At the same time, they themselves often consider themselves poor.

Who, after all, belongs to the middle class in modern Russia? In the United States, for example, there is a classic “layer cake”: society is clearly divided into segments - the very rich, the upper class (about 15-20%), the poorest 10-15% and in between 70% - the middle class. In Russia, the social hierarchy is shifted by one level simply because our upper stratum is extremely thin, although it controls enormous assets. The poorest group clearly stands out - these are 10-11% of people who not only do not meet any of the three criteria above, but also have no chance of changing their situation. The ideal middle class (it can be called the “core”), which satisfies all three criteria, is approximately 7%. In terms of its presence in society and partly its socio-political function, this group is comparable to the American upper class.

The Russian middle class as a whole, perhaps, should be considered those of our fellow citizens who fit into at least two of the classical parameters. As studies conducted within the framework of a project by the Independent Institute for Social Policy and the Carnegie Moscow Center show, there are still 10–15 percent of these people: in terms of lifestyle, thinking style, and norms of behavior, they are much closer to each other than everyone else. By the way, a 20 percent (in total) middle class is a good result if we take into account the destructive processes of the early 1990s, when there was a multiple drop in income and social resources.

The remaining 70% are of greatest interest. Quantitatively, they coincide with the American middle class, but in reality they are “sandwiched” between the “middle” and the poorest. It is the scale of this layer that is a characteristic feature and the main problem of the modern social situation in Russia. This is a poorly formed mass group, in some ways similar to the poor, in others to the middle class, but in fact not belonging to either one or the other.

When Russia entered the phase of economic recovery at the beginning of this decade, many expected that it would lead to a change in proportions in the social pyramid: the middle class would grow in number and the poverty zone would shrink. What really happened? Growth gave two types of impulses. The first is an increase in incomes and wages in advanced manufacturing and service sectors, which strengthened the position of that same 20 percent group - average and above average.

A detailed analysis of these 70% allows us to divide this group approximately in half: 33% of them are more similar in their characteristics to “average” (they have one characteristic), and 37% are like the poor. This means that with a favorable vector of the country’s movement, the potential middle class in total can be about 50%, and in the event of serious shocks, the poverty zone will easily exceed 40%. Therefore, a social examination of any reforms is necessary, at least from the point of view of whether they provoke the displacement of significant groups below the poverty line. It is no coincidence that the monetization of benefits caused such a stir both in society and among the elite: 40% of the population saw in it the threat of losing real income and falling into the category of the poor.

The existing socio-economic structure is very difficult to change. The system has found internal balance, society has fallen into the trap of poor balance.

[page break]

What to do? The fact that the vast majority of the population is not included in the development process shows the weakness of the entire system. To make it sustainable, it is not enough to simply increase financial resources allocated to the social sector. It is not social, but economic policy that is responsible for the below-average group; it is this policy that must first of all create conditions for the involvement of “intermediate” people in productive activities. On the one hand, it is necessary to free up initiative, stimulate entrepreneurial activity, expand the scope of small business, and de-bureaucratize the economy. On the other hand, investments in human capital: the development of programs in the field of education and health care. The latter is directly related to economic development. People need to be provided with basic resources, based on which they themselves could improve their socio-economic situation - educational and professional level, as well as health.

Contrary to popular belief, the middle class is never the engine of fundamental change - such initiatives come either from the elite or from below, if the scale of discontent among disadvantaged groups reaches a critical level. The role of the middle class is a guarantor of the stability of an already established society, which, however, does not yet apply to our country.

For Russia, another function of this social group is much more important - the conductor of innovative forms of socio-economic activity. The active middle class, interested primarily in increasing its own status and further improving its financial situation, is mastering new subjects and forms of activity, transmitting them further to more mass groups. In other words, the middle class is not the initiator of revolutionary change, but serves as the vanguard of evolutionary progress.

Society of Unequal Opportunities