| Summary: | The article discusses the results of comparative analysis of the results of 1990s’ and 2000s’ reforms from the point of view of the losses and gains of Russians. Using the data from longitudinal sociological surveys the author presents the changes in the ratio of winners and losers, provides detailed characteristics of these groups, analyzes the peculiarities of their socio-economic adaptation. In particular, based on self-estimation, there is a six fold increase in the number of winners from the reforms of the 2000s in comparison with the winners from the reforms of the 1990s. This can be explained by improvement of socio-economic situation in the country and increasing government attention to tackling social problems as well as by the rise of people's adaptive capacities. Currently the proportion of “winners” is higher among those people who in the early stages of market reforms experienced disastrous deterioration of their economic situation. So today, among “winners” there are many people who were only able to slightly improve their position, and positive social well-being is often the result of modest pretensions. Often moderate social optimism expresses not so much a positive assessment of the existing reality but mainly strengthening opinion about favorable changes in the future. Among “winners” there is a substantial group of people who have received certain preferences from the state.Changes resulted in a considerable improvement of the social well-being of pensioners and public sector employees. The significance and emotional problems of physical survival expressed in previous years by a less successful and more successful people have visibly diminished.With the improvement of the socio-economic situation the number of supporters of market reforms has increased, especially among the most adapted people. At the same time the author emphasizes an internal inconsistency and conflict in mass consciousness, which is explains by the contradictions of social reality, on the one hand, and unclear prospects of future development of the country, on the other. The analysis leads to the conclusion that in the future the ratio of winners and losers will be largely determined by the directions of the country socio-economic policy.
|
|---|
