Transcript Document

State University – Higher School of Economics
Alexander Tatarko
A Study of Perceived Social
Capital 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.
Table 1. Sample Composition in the Study of Social Capital of Members of
Different Ethnic Groups in Russia
Ethnic group
N
Age
(median)
males/females
Russian
226
27,7
80/146
Chechen
106
38
34/72
Questionnaire
Part 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.
Questionnaire
Part 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:
Ethnic minorities
Other religious faiths
Sexual minorities
Differently minded
people (politically)
Hate
them
1
1
1
1
Are
Are
Are
Fullirritated indiffere tolerant heartedly
by them
nt
of them accept
them
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
Questionnaire
Part 2. Economic 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
for Russians and Chechens according to Student’s T-Test
Tolerance
Saliency of Valence (positivity
towards outCivil
level) of Civil
group members Identity
Identity
Trust
Level
Russian
2,5
3,3
3,7
4,0
2,5
3,0
3,4
3,5
-0,14
3,3
1,9
2,7
0,88
0,001
0,05
0,007
Chechen
t
р
Table 2. The Significance of Differences in Economic Attitudes
between Russians and Chechens according to Student’s T-Test
Russian
Chechen
t
р
Interest in
the
economic
affairs
3,1
3,2
-1,1
0,24
The
Willingness to
importance
take an
of money
economic risk
and property
3,7
3,0
3,8
2,9
-0,64
0,52
0,52
0,58
Satisfaction
with one’s
material
condition
3,0
2,7
1,7
0,09
Table 3. The Social Capital Indicators in relation to the Indicators of
Economic Attitudes in the Russian Sample (N=226)
Trust
Level
Interest in the
economic affairs
The importance of
money and property
Willingness to take
an economic risk
Satisfaction with
one’s material
condition
Tolerance
towards out- Saliency of
group
Civil
members
Identity
Valence
(positivity level)
of Civil Identity
0,15*
0,049
0,13*
0,16*
0,028
-0,15*
0,21**
0,060
0,105
0,13*
0,16*
0,096
0,21***
0,14*
Note: * р<0.05; ** р<0.01; *** р<0.001;
0,119
Table 4. The Social Capital Indicators in relation to the Indicators
of Economic Attitudes in the Chechen Sample (N=106)
Trust
Level
Interest
in
the
economic affairs
0,40***
The
importance
of
money and property
0,135
Willingness to take an
economic risk
0,17
Satisfaction with one’s
material condition
0,043
Valence
Tolerance
(positivity
towards out- Saliency of level) of
group
Civil
Civil
members
Identity
Identity
0,21*
0,013
0,123
0,148
0,094
0,083
0,16
0,002
0,105
-0,131
0,114
0,061
Note: * р<0.05; ** р<0.01; *** р<0.001;
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.
Figure 1. Semantic Space Delineating the Evaluation of Social Capital by the Russians
in the Russian Federation
Factor 2
«Social support»
Family
I
III
Friends
International org. President
Educational institutions
Judicial agencies
Private Business
Mass Media
Factor 1
«Value of a particular individual»
Federal Gov.
Parliament
The militia
Local Gov.
Social services
IV
Political Parties
Social organiz. Church
II
Colleagues
Chief
Army
Figure 2. Semantic Space Delineating the Evaluation of Social Capital by the Chechens
in the Russian Federation
Factor 2
«Social support»
Friends
Family
Social services
III
Religious community
I
Colleagues
Educatonal institutions
Immediate Chief
Media Militia Fed. Gov
Local Gov.Business Soc. org.
Army
Political Parties
Factor 1
«Value of a particular individual»
Judicial agencies
Parliament
IV
II
President
International org.
CONCLUSIONS
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.