State University – Higher School of State University – Higher School of EconomicsEconomics

Alexander TatarkoAlexander Tatarko

A Study of Perceived SocialCapital in a Multicultural Society:

the Case of Russia

(Moscow, Russia)

The aim of this research is to examine how social capital is related to individuals’ economic attitudes within Russia’s different ethnic groups.

Inasmuch as social capital, in this study, was conceived at the societal (macro) level, we chose to measure it using the following indicators:

Trust; Tolerance towards out-group members; Civil Identity.

TableTable 1. 1. Sample Composition in the Study of Social Capital of Members of Sample Composition in the Study of Social Capital of Members of Different Ethnic Groups in Russia Different Ethnic Groups in Russia

Ethnic group

N Age (median)

males/females

Russian 226 27,7 80/146

Chechen 106 38 34/72

QuestionnaireQuestionnairePart 1. Social capitalPart 1. Social capital

1. Trust Level. This indicator was an arithmetic mean of two questions aimed to appraise individuals’ general trust/mistrust of people. The questions were taken from the World Values Survey questionnaire.

2. Civil Identity Indicators. Two civil-identity characteristics were measured on a 5-score scale:

2.1. Saliency of Civil Identity. The respondents were to answer the question “To what extent do you feel you are a member of your State?” using a 5-score scale.

2.2. Valence (positivity level) of Civil Identity. The respondents were to answer the question “What kind of sensation evokes with you the awareness that you are a citizen of your State (Russian Federation)?” choosing among the following five answers: (1) a sense of pride; (2) a sense of calm confidence; (3) a sense of indifference; (4) a sense of injury; (5) a sense of humiliation.

Those options were then given the following coded scores: 5– sense of pride, 4 – sense of calm confidence, 3 – sense of indifference, 2 – sense of injury, 1 – sense of humiliation.

QuestionnaireQuestionnairePart 1. Social capitalPart 1. Social capital

3. Tolerance towards out-group members. This indicator was calculated as an arithmetic mean of four questions allowing one to appraise the respondents’ tolerance in several dimensions.

How do the people of your acquaintance feel

about people belonging to:

Hate them

Are irritated by them

Are indiffere

nt

Are tolerant of them

Full-heartedly

accept them

Ethnic minorities 1 2 3 4 5Other religious faiths 1 2 3 4 5Sexual minorities 1 2 3 4 5Differently minded people (politically)

1 2 3 4 5

QuestionnaireQuestionnairePart 2. Part 2. Economic AttitudesEconomic Attitudes

4. Attitudes concerning economic realities, economic notions. A questionnaire was used comprising 14 questions allowing one to appraise the respondents’ attitudes to economic realities. Answers to the questions were given based on a five-score system and were combined into the following three scales:

- ‘Interest in the economic affairs’ α=0,8 (questions such as “To what extent are you interested in the state of affairs in our country’s economy?”, “How often do you watch programs about our country’s economic policies in the mass media?”);

- ‘The importance of money and property’ α=0,7 (questions such as “How important is money for you, do you think?”, “Will you please appraise the extent to which you desire to own property such as a flat, a bank account, stocks, etc.?”);

- ‘Willingness to take an economic risk’ α=0,8 (questions such as “Will you please appraise the extent of your willingness to take an economic risk in order to increase your income?”, “Will you please appraise the level of economic risk you consider to be optimal for you?”).

5. Satisfaction with one’s material condition. The respondents were asked to agree or disagree with the statement “I am satisfied with my level of material wellbeing” on a 7-score scale, from “disagree” to “fully agree”.

Table 1. The Significance of Differences in Social Capital Indicators Table 1. The Significance of Differences in Social Capital Indicators for Russians and Chechens according to Student’s T-Testfor Russians and Chechens according to Student’s T-Test

Trust Level

Tolerance towards out-group members

Saliency of Civil Identity

Valence (positivity level) of Civil Identity

Russian2,5 3,3 3,7 4,0

Chechen

2,5 3,0 3,4 3,5t

-0,14 3,3 1,9 2,7р

0,88 0,001 0,05 0,007

Table 2. The Significance of Differences in Economic Attitudes Table 2. The Significance of Differences in Economic Attitudes between Russians and Chechens according to Student’s T-Testbetween Russians and Chechens according to Student’s T-Test

Interest in the economic affairs

The importance of money and property

Willingness to take an economic risk

Satisfaction with one’s material condition

Russian 3,1 3,7 3,0 3,0Chechen 3,2 3,8 2,9 2,7t -1,1 -0,64 0,52 1,7р 0,24 0,52 0,58 0,09

TableTable 3. 3. The Social Capital Indicators in relation to the Indicators The Social Capital Indicators in relation to the Indicators of Economic Attitudes in the Russian Sample (N=226) of Economic Attitudes in the Russian Sample (N=226)

Note: * р<0.05; ** р<0.01; *** р<0.001;

Trust Level

Tolerance towards out-group members

Saliency of Civil Identity

Valence (positivity level) of Civil Identity

Interest in the economic affairs 0,15* 0,049 0,13* 0,16*The importance of money and property 0,028 -0,15* 0,21** 0,060Willingness to take an economic risk 0,105 0,13* 0,16*Satisfaction with one’s material condition 0,096 0,21*** 0,14* 0,119

Table 4. The Social Capital Indicators in relation to the Indicators Table 4. The Social Capital Indicators in relation to the Indicators of Economic Attitudes in the Chechen Sample (N=106) of Economic Attitudes in the Chechen Sample (N=106)

Note: * р<0.05; ** р<0.01; *** р<0.001;

Trust Level

Tolerance towards out-group members

Saliency of Civil Identity

Valence (positivity level) of Civil Identity

Interest in the economic affairs 0,40*** 0,21* 0,013 0,123The importance of money and property 0,135 0,148 0,094 0,083Willingness to take an economic risk 0,17 0,16 0,002 0,105Satisfaction with one’s material condition 0,043 -0,131 0,114 0,061

To evaluate the perceived social capital of various social institutions a modified semantic differential was used.

We developed a modification of the semantic differential enabling us to reconstruct a group structure of notions about the social capital levels of various institutions. The technique involves the use of a semantic differential whose scales correspond to the principal components of social capital: trust, social cohesion, tolerance, and civil identity. The respondents were asked to evaluate on a scale 19 social/societal institutions in conformity with six basic spheres of social/societal interaction (from the family and friends up to international institutions).

The results of scale-scoring evaluation were processed then using a standard procedure: the results were subjected to factor analysis, the revealed factors were named, the factor weights of scale-scoring evaluation objects (various institutions) were calculated; then the scale-scoring evaluation objects, in conformity with their weights, were placed in the spaces of the revealed factors which were given names.

Family

Friends

ColleaguesChief

Church

Army

Educational institutions

Social organiz .

The militia

Social services

Local Gov.

Mass Media

Federal Gov.

Private Business

Political Parties

Judicial agencies

Parliament

PresidentInternational org.

Factor Factor 11 ««Value of a particular individualValue of a particular individual»»

Factor 2Factor 2 ««Social supportSocial support»»

IIIIIIII

IIIIIVIV

Figure 1. Semantic Space Delineating the Evaluation of Social Capital by the Russians in the Russian Federation

FamilyFriends

Colleagues

Immediate Chief

Religious community

Army

Educatonal institutions

Soc. org. Militia

Social services

Local Gov .M edia Fed. Gov

Business

Political Parties Judicial agencies

Parliament

President

International org.

Factor 2Factor 2 ««Social supportSocial support»»

Factor Factor 11 ««Value of a particular individualValue of a particular individual»»

II

IIII

IIIIII

IVIV

Figure 2. Semantic Space Delineating the Evaluation of Social Capital by the Chechens in the Russian Federation

CONCLUSIONSCONCLUSIONS

1. The Russians’ social capital indicators differ from those of the Chechens. If the level of trust with members of the two groups is similarly low, the indicators of tolerance to out-groups and the indicators of civil identity salience and positivity are higher with the Russians.

2. The social capital of both ethnic groups correlates with the economic attitudes and notions. The correlations are positive, i.e. the social capital is related positively to ‘interest in the economic affairs’, ‘the importance of money and property’, ‘willingness to take an economic risk’, and ‘satisfaction with material conditions’.

3. The revealed correlations have similarities as well as differences. The similarity lies in the fact that in both ethnic groups the level of trust correlates positively with ‘interest in the economic affairs’. The difference consists in the fact that, with the Russians, civil identity measurements are related to the economic attitudes and notions but with the Chechens they are not related at all.

4. We assume that the differences in civil identity should manifest themselves in different attitudes towards the country’s social institutions. A negative perception of social institutions ‘breaks off’ a connection between the social capital and economic activity of citizens. This was graphically shown in our comparing the Chechens with the Russians.