Paul Goble
Staunton,
March 10 – Over the past 15 years, opportunities in Russia’s regions have
increased to the point that their residents “often feel much more successful
than do Muscovites and Petersburgers, according to a new study carried out by
scholars at the Moscow Institute of Sociology.
The
study, Capitals and Regions in
Present-Day Russia: Myths and Realities 15 Years Later (in Russian, Moscow:
Ves Mir, 2018; 312 pages), compares survey data from the first years of Putin’s
rule with new polls conducted in the last year or two (lenta.ru/articles/2018/03/09/provincial/).
One
of its authors, Svetlana Mareyeva, says that improving conditions in the
regions mean that “the conflict between Moscow and Russia is disappearing” and
that as a result, fewer people from the provinces feel they have no choice but
to move to the center in order to make good careers.
But
another, she says, is that the economic crisis has hit residents of Moscow and
St. Petersburg harder than it has hit others, something people in the provinces
can see and that has had a major impact on how they assess both their own position
and its relationship to possibilities in the capital.
In
terms of most objective measures, Mareyeva continues, “life has improved in all
types of settlement both in rural areas and in cities.” Moreover, “life has
become more similar.” Today it is much less important “whether you live in
Samara or in Moscow” to predict what you own and what your life chances are.
In
both places, the sociologist says, “people have approximately the same
selection of durable consumer goods, technology and property; and there is the
Internet and mobile links. Fifteen years ago, the differences were significant.”
There are still differences, but they have “begun to decline.”
Of
course, “the megalopolises offer more opportunities beyond any doubt. But there
too a rapprochement is taking place.” And that convergence is affecting how
people in both places evaluate their own situations and their comparisons with
life in the other. Fifteen years ago,
everyone said big cities provided the best opportunities; now, people in both
places are divided.
Indeed,
Mareyeva continues, “the share of those who say that it is easier to achieve a
number of things in the provinces is significant.” That is most notable in
small towns and villages, less so in small and mid-sized cities. But Russians
now see more equal chances in education and employment between Moscow and
elsewhere.
These
trends mean that “some major oblast centers have the chance to represent an
alternative to the capitals” for many Russians, surveys show. And that means that in this regard, “the conflict
which existed between Moscow and the entire rest of Russia 15 years ago is
disappearing,” all the more so because the big cities have suffered more from
the crisis.
But
there is another factor at work: residents of the capital are more critical of
how much they have achieved than are people in smaller cities where a far
higher percentage of people feel they have been successful. In Moscow, “every tenth resident thinks that
he or she has not done anything significant.”
Nonetheless,
the sociologist says, the surveys show key differences among rural residents,
residents of smaller cities and people in the capital city. “For residents of
the capital freedom is important, that is, ‘to be master of oneself,’ and to
have variety in one’s life.” For those
in smaller cities, what matters is the respect of those around them.
And
“in rural areas, people most often talk about the possibility of living no
worse than others.” Only 15 percent of
Russians connect success with wealth, and 11 percent with prestige
property. In Moscow, people connect
success with high positions, but only 17 percent of them do so. Single digits
link success with power in all three categories.
“The
nominal indicators of incomes in Moscow and St. Petersburg always were higher,
and they are so today as well. But life there is much more expensive.”
Moreover, 15 years ago, there were fewer people in middle income groups and
more at the top and the bottom in Moscow than was the case elsewhere.
“But
over the last 10 to 15 years, the Moscow and Petersburg models have become more
similar to those in the provinces.” On the one hand, that is good because it
reduces tensions. But on the other, it
reflects a tendency that is dangerous in the long term: the devaluation and
reduction of investment in education for oneself and one’s children.
Now,
the sociologist says, Russians in both cities and rural areas “do not see any
need” to do so. Education is less
important for many jobs, while “at the same time, the number of workers with
mid or lower level qualifications is growing.” As education has declined in
importance so too have the places where it is offered.
No comments:
Post a Comment