| Summary: | Based on data from representative all-Russian monitoring studies conducted during the years 2014-2018 by the Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences an analysis is presented of the main issues faced by the population of Russia, as well as their dynamics. It is revealed that during the post-crisis period there are no positive shifts occurring in terms of the population’s financial situation. These financial troubles are accompanied by a deficit of health and healthcare. Russians have already worked out practices aimed at improving their financial status, even if they do not bear a long-term focus, while issues such as health and health protection are very much at hand, and are something just only being recognized by the people. It is shown that, in such a context, certain “areas of risk” for social stability are emerging, which are caused by separate groups of the Russian people being unable to adequately respond to challenges posed by various aspects of the Russian crisis, as well as the fact that many local institutional issues have not been resolved. They are constituted by a situation characterized by poor financial status and socio-psychological tension. Meanwhile, in the years after the crisis, a stabilizing of “areas of risk” is being observed, and, as a result, those involved require ever more significant support from the state. The solidification of “areas of risk” is due to the structural positions of unskilled workers – those who are easily replaceable either by other employees, or by production automation. This eventually allows for considering these specific categories to be the basis for developing the structural positions of the “generic workforce” (Castells, 2000) in Russia. Territorial models for the development of “areas of risk” and “areas of stability” (which would include Russians who are not enduring any sort of financial troubles, and who are in no need for improving their financial situation in any way), them being opposites, bear a differentiated nature, which implies dividing the population into the two aforementioned groups, as well as an intensely developing polarity, the emergence of an “intermediate area”, etc. The situation is especially disturbing in Nizhniy Novgorod Oblast and Primorsky Krai.
|
|---|
