WHEN THINGS FALL APART

1. WHEN THINGS FALL APART Qualitative Studies of Poverty in the former Soviet Union

2. …things fall apart Title draws both on Yeats “The Second Coming (1921) “…Things fall apart; the center cannot hold…” written between the two World Wars, and Chinua Achebe’s great 1958 novel about the Ibo’s painful transition to a post-colonial world

3. Background of the studies • Qualitative studies of poverty in 8 FSU countries • Studies conducted 1993-1998; some along with LSMS or quant surveys; some for projects • Most authors anthropologists; had lived in the FSU; spoke local languages

4. Key messages • Methodological: the importance of qualitative approaches for understanding the relationship between perceptions, experiences and behavior • Multidimensionality of poverty • Unique aspects of poverty in the former Soviet Union (FSU) • Importance of country knowledge

5. Contents of the study • A Window on Social Reality: Qualitative methods in poverty research • From Soviet Expectations to Post-Soviet Realities: Poverty during the transition • Central Asia: Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan • South Caucasus: Armenia, Georgia • West of the Urals: Ukraine, Moldova, Latvia

6. Methodology • Purposive sampling of sites; households • 100s of open-ended HH, key informant interviews; FGs, observation of living conditions • Generalizability based on large samples • Authors prepared instruments, recruited and trained teams, worked with them in the field • Analysis based on individual interview reports/summaries or transcripts

7. The importance of qualitative approaches for the FSU • Former Soviet countries undergoing abrupt change; little studied & poorly understood • Standard LSMS categories (household; employment) not always applicable • More suitable for exploring sensitive issues (corruption, deviance, quasi-legal survival strategies)

8. What’s different about post-Soviet poverty? • Volume covers 8 countries with distinct pre-Soviet histories and cultures • Carried out in different years, studies document emergence, evolution and institutionalization of poverty in FSU • Demonstrate differentiation and diverging approaches to poverty among new nation-states

9. A chronology of Soviet poverty • Steady improvement in standard of living 1960-1980; serious poverty hidden (prisons, residential institutions) • Inflation, shortages, rationing in the 1980s led to growth of shadow economy, strengthened reliance on informal networks • State dissolution and economic collapse spared no-one except top political and economic elite

10. The collapse • State fragmentation sundered trade links; caused abrupt drop in production, employment • Shortages of fuel, electricity brought economic and daily life to a standstill, esp. in cities • Social services crippled • Hyperinflation – people lost life savings overnight • Burgeoning criminality, explosion of “mafias” • Leadership without credibility

11. The new poor • New poor from all walks of life; most were educated, previously employed & socially integrated into their communities • Shared ideological conviction/assumption that state should provide employment, services, and prevent large socioeconomic disparities • Historic denial of and strong public disapproval of poverty created sense of humiliation

12. Response to shock • Work tied to social status; unemployment linked to shame, depression, alcoholism, suicide • Inability to participate in ceremonial/ritual obligations led to exclusion from networks • Gendered response – women more resilient; men emasculated/paralyzed

13. Initial coping strategies • People used networks established in Soviet period • Reduced consumption; pilfered state assets; sold own assets/housing, went into debt • Subsistence gardening became safety net • New micro-enterprises; vulnerable to “mafias” • Expanding shuttle trade (women); labor migration (men) • Emigration to other FSU countries; Europe, N. America

14. The normalization of poverty • Street children, “bag ladies,” refugees, and Mercedes co-exist; visible rich-poor gap • Sharp socio-economic stratification, social networks of rich and poor separate, linked by clientelism • Institutionalized Soviet-era corruption has expanded, diversified, become more violent • Pervasive insecurity; vulnerability to shock • Collapse of old institutions; new ones still fragile

15. Conclusions • Similar psychological response and coping strategies across FSU, along with increasing diversity in patterns of growth, opportunity • Weak Soviet institutions provided poor basis for institutions of newly independent states, (need more attention to governance issues) • Deep nostalgia among middle/older generations; continued expectations of state as provider; belief in social justice, egalitarianism

16. What next? • Poverty studies should include non-poor • More nuanced examination of social relationships (social capital) • Devote more serious attention to building capacity of local researchers; provide better tools for policymakers • Policies should target pockets of extreme poverty, where exclusion is eroding prospects of children/youth