Expertise

Leonid Polishchuk, Head of the Laboratory of Applied Analysis of Institutions and Social Capital, National Research University Higher School of Economics

Data indicate a partial recovery of social capital in Russia after its sharp decline in the early 1990s. Social capital is usually understood as the ability of people to act together for a common goal. Twenty years ago, the optimism of the perestroika era gave way to apathy and mutual distrust, and the liberal values that had never taken root in Russian society were replaced by “survival values” and the paternalism familiar from Soviet times. They preferred to survive alone or relying on their closest friends. Thus, in Russia in the 1990s, “closed” social capital of small groups and clans prevailed. Such social capital is initially apolitical - political activity has meaning and a chance of success only when it involves many like-minded people, often unfamiliar with each other, but sharing common values. Russians in the 1990s did not believe in the possibility of using common efforts to change the life of the country for the better and solved, with more or less success, their own individual problems. Society became atomized: there was a mass withdrawal from public life into families and small groups.

But the stability and relative economic prosperity of the 2000s strengthened the Russian middle class, and people, having solved their own economic problems, began to pay more attention to their environment - roads, safety, environment, and also take other people's troubles and difficulties closer to heart. The gradual growth of trust and the expansion of social connections contributed to the growth of charity, not only oligarchic-corporate, but also mass. Everyone remembers the participation of hundreds and thousands of volunteers in helping victims of natural disasters, environmental movements and other examples of networked social support and civic initiatives, and then unexpectedly numerous rallies for fair elections, which were based on the social capital of expanded weak (“friend”) ties.

These are all, of course, signs of recovery. However, it is important to understand that the social capital that grows in a society where social institutions work poorly has its own shadow side. Many in Russia have come to terms with the lack of public accountability of officials and are using stronger social connections in large and small groups as an alternative to government services. This practice produces tangible results, but further dampens the bureaucracy, creating confidence among officials that people themselves will solve problems that arise, without asking awkward questions about where their taxes were spent. Public initiatives aimed at solving specific problems can effectively complement a state accountable to citizens, but cannot fully replace it.

The state cannot be replaced