Risk management and Russian society

1. Risk management and Russian society Simo Mannila National Institute for Health and Welfare Aleksanteri Institute University of Helsinki, 28 Oct 2014

2. Structure of the presentation • Risk: varioustheoreticalframes of reference • Russian risksociety • Informalsecurityregime and someempiricalideas

3. The concept of ”risk society” • Starting point: Ulrich Beck’s concept of risk society in the 1980s – based on ecological considerations • But where is the risk society? At which level the risks exist? Are they identified or constructed – if yes, by whom? Whose risks are we talking about? Competing discourses on e.g. economic growth • Beck: discourses of governance – rather far from socio-political analysis, mainly new theoretical and critical inputs • General interest of social sciences in the concept of risk since the 1980s - Beck is only one example?

4. The concept of ”insurance society” • ”Insurance society” conceptby Francois Ewald 1984 – directlyrelevant for social policy-making • Link with corporatistregime? Insurance as a form of riskpooling: for those with a ”social package” i.e. employer-relatedsocial schemes? • Developmentdepends on the future of social dialogue? Is there a competition of social policyregimes: potentialconvergencetowardsneoliberalmodels?

5. Social policy as risk management / the World Bank • Robert Holzmann & al. (2000; 2001): mitigation of or fight against (i.e. prevention of) risks: there are various ways of prevention and mitigation incl. social policy • Classification of risks by sources (e.g. life cycle, social, economic, environmental) and levels of occurence (micro/ idiosyncratic, meso, macro/ covariate) • The types of risk include e.g. floods/ drought, pollution, political turmoil, financial crises, trade shocks, unemployment, old age, birth and disability

6. Risk management strategies / WB • Prevention: reduction of the probability of a down-side risk (e.g. lifelong learning, innovation, social dialogue, development of buffering social protection) • Decreasing the potential impact of a down-side risk (three mitigation strategies: portfolio diversification i.e investment in various forms of ”capital” , risk pooling formal i.e. social insurance and informal, and hedging i.e. someone assuming the risk and is compensated) • Coping with the risk that has occurred: e.g. income loss coped with dissaving, migration, increased work, reduced consumption, various (also social) transfers

7. The concept of risk in anthropology • Mary Douglas’ work ”Risk and Blame” (1992), ”Risk and Culture (& Aron Wildavsky 1982) on perception of risk – also the early ”Purity and Danger” (1966) - linking these two • Starting point to a more general ” a cultural theory of risk” • Harms associated with transgression of norms > perception of deviant behaviour and contact with the ”other/s” as risks • Group & grid –theoretical framework: there are ”high group” and ”low group” and ”high grid” and ”low grid” ways of life > four alternatives of risk management and life styles • These alternatives differ also in the definition of deviance and ”the other/s”, how the contact is regulated and carried out > definitions of eligibility, inclusion vs. exclusion, relationship to e.g. immigrants and ethnic minorities

8. Still some approaches to risk… • Rational choice theory in taking risks < criticised by the cultural theory pointing out that people are not so rational • ”Psychometric” approach pointing out the heuristics and biases of the perception/ definition of risks – to be studied empirically • Attempts to link the ”psychometric” approach to cultural theory? • Deborah Lupton’s work (Risk, 1999), (Risk and Everyday Life with J Tulloch 2003) • Extensive international discourse, received also in Finland in the late 1980s and early 1990s (e.g. Eräsaari 1989, 1995)

9. Some key criticism of the concept of risk and a response • Focus on risk in social policy means gearing it away from needs? • Does it also mean less focus on human rights or social rights? • World Bank Hate Club and its response? • Is the work on the concept of risk compliant with an emphasis on human rights? • Would the concept of risk, however, be a more feasible concept for analyzing social policies and their implementation in a globalized world and under scarcity of resources?

10. Risk and Russian society • Russian society is a risksociety to bedefined in empiricalterms: risk of wars, somecrime (incl. terrorattacks), economicshocks (regional, branch-specific, general), stochasticlawenforcement (e.g. occupationalsafety) increasedmorbidity and mortalityat individual and familylevel • Is thisreflected in the concept of social policy-making? Is there a risk management aspect in the design of social policy? No? Whoserisksare ”managed” bypolicy-making at variouslevels • Whatrisksareperceived and whodefines the risks? Does the elitehavedifferentrisksfromthose of someparts of the population?

11. Perception of risks > informal security regime • Differentperception and management of risksbydifferentparts of the society – is thistrue? • The concept of informalsecurityregime: risk management schemes of those with lowtrust in the government and its social policies > reliance on traditionalfamily and otherinformalnetworks • Developsdue to lesscopingmechanismsamongpoorpeople for varioustypes of schocks • Less influence on formal and informalinstitutions, limitedvoice > dependentsecurity, clientelization(”putinism”?) • Reduced social capital > short-termorientation in life, no long-termperspectivesand general riskavoidance > poverty culture • Risk-taking is generallygood for the economicdevelopment

12. Informal security regime – background • Concept developed by the UK researchers Ian Gough & Geoff Wood (e.g. 2004) • Global concept, no specific mention of countries in transition; comparisons with Asian, African and Latin American countries – a concept for ”development contexts” (cf. German Gref’s comment of the development phase of the Russian Federation) • Question 1: can the concept be applicable on the development of Russian social policy, or risk management schemes in Russia? • Question 2: can a research programme it implicitly contains be operationalized to fit into the Russian context

13. Some ideas for empirical research • Are there differences in social capital and its official vs. inofficial forms by segments of the Russian society? • Trust and networks (also transnational) and how they work today? • Informal economy and its repercussions – research beyond economics with no moral undertones, into life style, risk-taking • Is there informal security regime in the Russian society, if yes, where? • A case: extended families providing work, care and support, e.g. ”babushka in flux” phenomenon – were there any alternatives? • Risk-taking propensity and short- vs. long-term life perspectives in various population groups: ”no risk, no champagne” • Ethnic minorities and immigrants in the light of Douglas’ ideas? Legitimation of discrimination?

14. Why informal security regime? • The state is seen as captured by an ”elite”, ”clan” or ”nomenclatura” (”elite”?) not representing all people – is this true now? • In some cases, there is a ”colonial” legacy e.g. in the central government policies towards some minorities or minority regions whose voice is not (adequately) heard • (Risks of) market collapses (e.g. hyperinflation, 1998 devaluation, sanctions?) and political scandals of which both there is ample evidence in Russia reduce the trust in formal economy and formal security regime also durign stability • Informal economy is wide-spread and maintains a more general informality in society, enhancing also informal security (diversification of the portfolio by the WB concept)

15. Final comments • Varioustheoreticalframeworks of riskcan (and should) bemerged • Severalmiddle-rangeempiricalhypotheses to bedrawn on the concept of risk • Globalframes of referenceavailable, a possibility to comparativestudies • Combiningvariousdisciplinaryfields of research on Russian society • Linksbetweenformal and informalsecurityregimes: is increasedformality as a characteristic of modernity, as expectedearlier? Findingsfrom the developingcountriescontradictthis – hybridorsyncreticformsinstead? Areweallmovingtowardsrisksocieties and partlyinformalregime? • But: the perception of risks is nowreduced in the Russian Federation, due to the return of the national self-image as a superpower – return to the questionwhodefines the risks and how? Thankyou!