Статьи на ту же тему

СМИ об исследованиях

| 16 августа, 2013

Financial Security Does not always Lead to Improved Wellbeing

Kommersant Daily publication

By Irina Nagornikh

Konstantin Kostin's Foundation for the Development of Civil Society (FDCS) has compiled a report rating the social well-being of regions (which Kommersant has been given access to). The research is based on data from the “Public Opinion” Foundation (FOM) and shows that Russian regions can be rated according to the peoples’ satisfaction levels with their current living situations - taking into account their attitude towards the authorities and protest potential. It should also be noted that a person’s sense of social security does not directly depend on the economic situations and living standards of that particular region. FDCS plans to monitor the dynamics of social well-being and to identify key parameters that affect its change.

Kommersant announced FDCS' plans to compile a new rating for the regions on the 17th April. During this time the technique for future research was perfected and its task clarified. It was decided that the focus would be primarily on the social well-being of civilians rather than the general development of the region. The head of FDCS, Konstantin Kostin, explained at the time to Kommersant that there are many questions for the experts and that they wanted to do something “fundamentally different” in order to reveal the attitudes of civilians towards their social status.

“Financial Security Does not always Lead to Improved Wellbeing" is a commentary on the results of the ratings; in other words there are some regions where “there is little money, but according to the general population this is distributed fairly and they are content with their lives”.
In the second group it became apparent that poor regions such as Tula, Sakhalin and Karachaevo-Cherkesiya overtook, for example, the more developed regions of Leningrad and Saratov. There were several regions in the first group where people rated their social well-being as high. The top ten was occupied by Moscow (see attachment).

During the compilation of the ratings there were two main surveys. The “geo-ratings” of the “Public Opinion” Fund, were carried out in February and May 2013 with 56,900 respondents from 79 regions, excluding the regions of Chukotsk, Nenets Autonomous Region, Chechnya and Ingushetia, with a statistical error of 1%. The regions are divided into four groups and are given a score of 1 to 100 (points and group index). The basic criteria are split into groups based on answers from four different questions (each worth 20 points).
Is the respondent happy or not with the state of affairs of the region?
Is the situation getting better or getting worse?
Do people feel discontent towards the regional management? If so, is the level of discontent increasing or decreasing?
Would the respondent agree to attend protests?

So called ‘marker’ questions were used in order to establish divisions within these groups (each worth 5 points):
Has the respondent recently taken out a loan, driven a car or gone abroad? An evaluation is taken of their financial situation over the last year; is there a situation where the respondent is tempted to attend a protest meeting?

Mr Kostin expressed his regret that ‘Geo-rating’ has so far not assessed the situation of several national entities of the Russian Federation. “We will ask the FOM to include this in their next survey. My guess is that the people from these less wealthy regions will express a high satisfaction rate of their social situation” says the head of the FCSD. According to Mr Kostin the most interesting aspect of this survey is to evaluate what drives the dynamics of the region and which factors are most influential. He suspects that the more sensitive subjects of each region will control which group they fall into.

The head of FOM, Aleksander Oslon, said that he was satisfied with the interpretation by the "geo-rating" method which has been in use for almost a decade and which is used primarily by the Presidential Administration. He is quoted as saying that "The Foundation for Civil Society Development utilises a clear and simple methodology: percentages are converted into points and summarised”.

According to Aleksander Oslon, the division of the regions into groups was influenced by economic factors and the effectiveness of each governor which “influences the well-being of people. The governors are aware that their ‘superiors’ have this kind of information and try to stay on top of the situation. Furthermore, the main factors affecting civilian life standards are measured in the region and it is part of the governor’s duty to keep track of this.” Oslon also noted that regional authorities sometimes want more detailed surveys and the FOM has worked together with the authorities of the Karelia, Sverdlovsk and Rostov regions. Together with the Moscow region the Foundation created project “SmartFOM”, where the authorities get a detailed picture of troubled zones based on the method of active sociological work.

The administrative centre of one of the regions in the third group was happy that their region was not at the bottom of the survey. “This year we have had many unpleasant events, so this rating is fine” one interviewee who wished to remain anonymous told Kommersant.

The FDCS is determined to organise a meeting in the near future to discuss ratings with experts. Yesterday we asked the Foundation to give us the first evaluation. The director of the regional program “The Independent Institute of Social Politics” Natalia Zubarevich reckons that the methodology can be further improved. In particular she points out that grouping together a protest held by a financially secure citizens and a protest held because of non-payment of wages are not correct, and these unclear boundaries can easily affect the results of the survey. The head of the “St Petersburg Politics” Foundation, Mikhail Vinogradov, points out that “Geo-rating” was used by specialists but can now be analysed both publicly and by the establishment, in a convenient format. “The research clearly highlights the problematic territories which have also been identified by other specialists. This is a signal to regional authorities, present and future, during the preparation for elections” says Mr. Vinogradov.