Journal: European Societies Manuscript ID: REUS-2009-0087.R1 Manuscript Type: Original Article Keywords: Transformation, Social Quality, Agency, Russia, Belarus, Ukraine European Societies Explaining Economic and Social Transformations in PostSoviet Russia, Ukraine and Belarus: The Social Quality Approach URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/reus E-mail: eusoc@essex.ac.uk Page 1 of 29 European Societies European Societies 1 2 3 yExplaining Economic and Social Transformations in Post-Soviet Russia, Ukraine and 4 Belarus: the Social Quality Approach 6 7 Abstract 8 9 This paper looks at the impact of the economic collapse of the former Soviet Union on the 11 12 lives of ordinary people in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus using qualitative as well as 13 14 quantitative data. . We argue that to understand the impact of the transformation it is 16 necessary to take a sociological approach. To provide a framework for our analysis we use the 17 18 Social Quality model which enables us to consider the recursive relation between agency and 19 structure and social and systems integration. We draw upon a sample survey of 8,400 21 22 23 individuals carried out in 2001 together with qualitative interviews with a purposefully 24 selected sample of individuals, health experts and focus groups conducted in 2002. The use of 26 27 qualitative data enables us to look beyond classifying variables to experience. We conclude 28 29 that collapse has not only resulted in a decline in the material circumstances of households but 31 also on social integration, social cohesion and the ability of people to take control over their 32 33 own lives. 34 36 Key words: Transformation, Social Quality, Agency, Russia, Belarus, Ukraine 37 38 39 41 42 43 44 46 47 48 49 51 52 53 54 56 57 58 59 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/reus E-mail: eusoc@essex.ac.uk European Societies Page 2 of 29 Page 2 of 29 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 31 32 33 34 36 37 38 39 41 42 43 44 46 47 48 49 51 52 53 54 56 57 58 59 1. INTRODUCTION: Explaining the Crisis in Post-Soviet Societies The collapse of communism in the USSR in 1991 resulted in rapid and dislocating economic and social changes, which have been little short of cataclysmic (e.g. Abbott and Wallace 2009; Burawoy1997, 2001; Shovchenko 2009; Stzompka 2002). The economic transition from planned market economies was accompanied by economic crisis exemplified in declining GDP, hyperinflation and cuts in state welfare spending. The social impact of transition can be seen in the increase in inequalities, rising poverty, unemployment, and violent crime, a decline in trust, a decline in well-being and de-modernization with the majority of the population being ‘losers’ (Abbott and Sapsford 2006; Abbott and Wallace 2009; Pridemore et al 2007; Rose 2009). In this paper we explore the relationship between the economic and the social impact of the transformation, seldom analyzed as most analysis has drawn upon liberal economics, more recently modified by the neo-institutionalist school of economics (Pickles and Smith 1998). In these explanations, the situation of individuals is “determined” by external and inevitable economic forces: individuals perceptions are considered irrelevant or at best as offering colourful illustration. However, we argue that in order to understand how economic transformations at a national level lead to specific problems, such as a decline in health, at the micro level of the individual we need to take into account the role of agency, meaning the scope for individuals to act within the context of structural changes. This requires an analysis of the impact of the transition on the agency and biography of individuals and the coping strategies adopted as they survive in the face of disruption and uncertainty. Relating objective welfare conditions to subjective perceptions of well-being (Fahey and Smyth 2004) opens the space for understanding peoples’ responses to structural change and the impact it has on their ability to take control over their lives and developing their capabilities (Sen 1993). A useful heuristic framework for such an analysis is provided by the Social Quality approach (see e.g. van der Maesen and Keizer 2002) which measures the quality of the social context of everyday life providing a sociologically grounded theoretical concept that defines the space within, which citizens are able to participate in the social and economic life of their 2 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/reus E-mail: eusoc@essex.ac.uk Page 3 of 29 European Societies 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 31 32 33 34 36 37 38 39 41 42 43 44 46 47 48 49 51 52 53 54 56 57 58 59 communities under conditions, which enhance their well being and individual potential (Beck et al 2001, 25). The approach focuses on the individual, as an active subject living in developing social conditions. The Social’ is seen as the outcome of the dialectical relationship between the formation of collective identities and the self-realisation of the human subject, between global processes and biographical processes on the one hand and between system integration and social integration on the other. The ‘social space’ is realised in and between four constitutive factors: • economic security, having available the necessary material resources; • social cohesion, the necessary collectively accepted values and norms are in place; • social inclusion, having access to the necessary institutional and infrastructural context; • the Conditions for empowerment enabling people to have control over their own lives and the capacity to act. It is possible to use the model to elicit a number of key indicators that can be used for empirical analysis to evaluate the quality of a society – indicators that are both objective and subjective. Ultimately, however, we need to understand what the main influences are on subjective life satisfaction are as it is subjective experience that influences agency and peoples’ ability to take control over their lives (Richardson et al 2008; Land et al 2007). The ultimate concern is with the specification of a liveable society for all (Herrmann and van der Maesen 2008). In this paper we examine the social impact of the transition using the Social Quality model as a framework. We take subjective life satisfaction as being the final outcome of Social Quality and we end with a multiple regression that measures the relative impact of the four quadrants on life satisfaction. URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/reus E-mail: eusoc@essex.ac.uk European Societies Page 4 of 29 Page 4 of 29 1 2 3 2 Methods 4 Our analysis is based on survey and qualitative case study data for Belarus, Russia and 6 7 Ukraine collected as part of the Living Conditions, Lifestyles and Health Project, a multi-level 8 9 study of the impact of the transformation on health and well-being. 11 12 2.1. The survey 13 14 The cross-sectional survey was carried out in 2001 using face-to-face interviews with a 16 representative sample of the adult population. The questionnaire for the survey was developed 17 18 by the project partners translated into Russian piloted, modified and back translated into 19 English for final checking. Multi-stage sampling with stratification by region and area, and 21 22 23 gender and age was used with a sample size of 2,000 in Belarus (as this provides reliable 24 estimates of proportions that represent three percent or more of the population at the national 26 27 level with a precision of 0.75 percent for most countries,) but a larger number in Russia 28 29 (4,000) and Ukraine (2,400) because of their significantly larger and more diverse populations 31 The response rates were 76 percent in Ukraine and 73 percent in Russia and Belarus. There 32 33 was a 10 percent call-back for quality control. The data was input into the statistical Package 34 36 for the Social Sciences for analysis. 37 38 2.2. Qualitative case studies 39 Seven qualitative case studies, comprising in total of 290 interviews, 38 expert interviews and 41 42 18 focus groups, were carried out in 2002/03, one in a more affluent area and one in a more 43 44 deprived area in each of Russia (Archangelsk and Samara) and Ukraine (Kherson and Lviv) 46 and, one in each of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine in the Chernobyl Region (see Table 1 for the 47 48 49 purposeful sampling framework). (Chernobyl was included in the research as a case study 51 because we interested in the impact of the nuclear accident on health and well-being. See 52 53 Abbott et al (2006) for an analysis of the findings for this region). 54 Table 1 about here 56 57 The research assistants were locally employed sociologists trained by us in qualitative 58 59 interviewing and data analysis. The agendas for the interviews and the topics for the focus groups were developed with them and we maintained contact during the fieldwork phase and 4 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/reus E-mail: eusoc@essex.ac.uk Page 5 of 29 European Societies European Societies 1 2 3 made field visits. Interviews and focus groups (in Russian except in Western Ukraine where 4 Ukrainian was used), were recorded and transcribed and we worked with the research 6 7 assistants on a sample of translated interviews to agree the main themes and construct an 8 9 index using the Framework system (Richie and Spencer 1993). The research assistants then 11 12 constructed the matrix charts for the individual interviews and a research assistant translated 13 14 them into English. The focus groups and expert interviews were translated into English and 16 we analysed them. 17 18 2.3 Regression analysis 19 To determine the influences on life satisfaction a series of linear regressions using indicators 21 22 23 derived from the social quality model controlling for age and gender were carried out using 24 the entre method with the dependent variable being a seven point index (the Life Satisfaction 26 27 Index) computed from the happiness and general satisfaction variables (see Appendix 1). The 28 29 means and standard deviations for the scale (Belarus M 4.37, SD 1.47: Russia, M4.39, SD 31 1.46: Ukraine M 3.89, SD 1.52) suggest that subjective well-being is relatively poor with the 32 33 Ukrainians reporting the poorest. (Conversion to Z scores indicated that the range is relatively 34 36 small, from -2.2 SDs to + 1.8SDs, and the distribution roughly normal , with just over 60 37 38 percent of the population in Belarus and Russia lying within -/+1SD slightly skewed to the 39 positive, but in Ukraine the distribution was negatively skewed with nearly 40 percent of 41 42 the population being more than -1SD from the mean and less than 10 percent more than 43 44 +1SD). 46 Finally we computed the Index of Social Quality from the variables that were significant at 47 48 49 the 99.9 percent level in the final model. We normalised the indicators (converted them to Z 51 scores) added them together and then renormalized. This enables us to consider the 52 53 distribution of Social Quality in the three countries. 54 The Strength of multivariate modelling is that it enables us to detect underlying patterns and 56 57 evaluates the main influences on the index of life-satisfaction. Nine of the independent 58 59 variables were scales computed to summarise a number of related questions (Appendix 1 and Table 7 below). We constructed the scales using factor analysis with varimax rotation and all 5 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/reus E-mail: eusoc@essex.ac.uk European Societies Page 6 of 29 Page 6 of 29 1 2 3 have acceptably high Cronbach alpha values. We used scales because one question is not 4 sufficient to measurer a multi-dimensional construct and using composite scales reduces 6 7 random variation in responses to individual questions so that what is lost in detail is gained 8 9 instability. The model was tested for multicollinearity and found to be satisfactory, the 11 12 tolerance of no variable being below 0 .40. 13 14 3. Results 16 Next we turn to the dimensions of transition in terms of the different aspects of Social Quality 17 18 using data from both the survey and the qualitative case studies. This enables us to provide a 19 much richer understanding of the liveability of post-Soviet societies than previous work that 21 22 23 has been based on an analysis of the survey data alone (Abbott 2007; Abbott and Sapsford 24 2006; Abbott and Wallace 2009). (For clarity we refer to those who participated in the 26 27 qualitative case studies as informants and those who took part in the survey as respondents). 28 29 3.1 Economic security 31 Economic security became more precarious in the 1990s. Real GDP declined (although it had 32 33 recovered somewhat by 2001 it remained below 1989 levels), unemployment increased and 34 36 the real value of wages declined. Hyper inflation made savings and benefits virtually 37 38 worthless. 39 Over three quarters of the survey respondents thought that the disintegration of the Soviet 41 42 Union had had a negative impact on the economy of their country and nearly half that their 43 44 own economic situation had got worse. Only around a fifth of respondents (21.7%, 23.6% and 46 19.0 % respectively in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine) thought that their economic situation had 47 48 49 improved. While about two thirds rated the state of the economy at the time of the Soviet 51 Union highly only a very small minority similarly rated the present state of the economy 52 53 highly, 15.9 percent in Belarus, 10.7 percent in Russia and 3.1 percent in Ukraine. In the 54 qualitative case studies informants expressed general dissatisfaction with life and many said 56 57 they were struggling to survive (Table 2). 58 59 Everything has deteriorated visibly since 1991.The main thing is the economic problems. All the rest happens as a consequence. (Focus group, Ukraine) 6 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/reus E-mail: eusoc@essex.ac.uk Page 7 of 29 European Societies European Societies 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 31 32 33 34 36 37 38 39 41 42 43 44 46 47 48 49 51 52 53 54 56 57 58 59 It gets worse and worse. The salary is small. We used to be able to afford everything now we cannot. (Female, Russia) Our informants kept returning to their financial difficulties and lack of financial security. They reported having to work much harder, often having more than one job, growing their own food and not being able to relax in the evenings or at weekends. For the majority making ends meet was hard work with little rest, a break from work or a holiday. The changes that have taken place are mostly related to the fact that I now spend more time at work than in the past – I spend so much time at work that I don’t have time to do a lot of things at home. (Male, Ukraine) One way people survived is by informal economic activity to supplement or replace income from the formal economy (Abbott and Wallace 2009). A majority of informants had a plot of land, the produce from which was a major source of food, enabling them to control economic uncertainty. Good diet is impossible without a supplementary plot of land. (Male, Russia) In Chernobyl many people had returned to the area despite the radiation in order to get employment, as one informant put it: It is better to die of radiation than of hunger. I don’t care if it is dangerous working in the 30 kilometre zone (i.e. the forbidden zone). What is important is that I have a job. (Male, Chernobyl region) The inability to afford to go on holiday any more was also frequently mentioned: We can’t afford to go on holiday now like we did in the past. (Female, Russia) Table 2 about here There has also been a real decline in the social wage – state and employment related non- monetary benefits. There has been a loss of taken for granted services and facilities Informants felt that the implicit social contract between them and their employers and state had been broken. Pensioners worked all their lives and now they don’t have anything (Female focus group, Ukraine). A male Russian informant suggested that: If you don’t care for yourself, the state doesn’t’ provide for you. The state doesn’t support people---you have to take care of yourself. URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/reus E-mail: eusoc@essex.ac.uk European Societies Page 8 of 29 Page 8 of 29 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 31 32 33 34 36 37 38 39 41 42 43 44 46 47 48 49 51 52 53 54 56 57 58 59 Respondents to the survey were also generally dissatisfied with their own and their households income, varying from just over 70 percent in Belarus to over 85 percent in Ukraine. Over three quarters said that their income was either insufficient or only just sufficient, to buy basic food and clothes varying from 78.3 percent in Belarus to 87.9 percent in Ukraine. A significant proportion of respondents said that they sometimes or always had to do without basic food – 36.6, 47.5 and 66.6 percent respectively in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine while some could not always afford heating – 17 percent in Belarus, 21.2 in Russia and 68.3 in Ukraine. Conversely less than a quarter said they could afford to buy major goods such as a television. In terms of material circumstances we were able to identified four groups, the affluent less, than 2 percent of respondents, the financially secure, about tenth of Ukrainians and a fifth of Russians and Belarusians who were able to enjoy a decent standard of living (securer), the poor accounting for around two-thirds of Russians and nearly 60 percent of Ukrainians, and the improvised, about a tenth of Russians and Belarusians and nearly 30 percent of Ukrainians (Table 3). Table 3 about here Few of our informants said that they were well-off and those that did, did not report affluent lifestyles, more that they had an acceptable/decent standard of living: I allow myself some luxuries, which are not available to other people. (Female, Ukraine) The poor, by far the largest group, got by, by combining income from more than one source and often growing food on a plot. A male schoolteacher in Belarus who also did private tutoring said: Life is such that we have to work a lot on our plot because our income does not provide enough for adequate food. The improvised struggled to survive. Some informants were able to provide adequately for their children but did without themselves; others were able to feed their family adequately during the summer when they had produce from their plot to supplement the diet but not at other times of the year. Others struggled all the time to get by. 8 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/reus E-mail: eusoc@essex.ac.uk Page 9 of 29 European Societies European Societies 1 2 3 When the winter comes the diet becomes more or less monotonous. We eat macaroni and 4 potatoes – mostly potatoes. (Female, Ukraine) 6 7 You have to feed the children but there is no money. (Female focus group, Ukraine) 8 9 The difficult financial circumstances for many means that they are excluded from engaging 11 12 in activities previously they had taken for granted. Some were concern that they could not 13 14 afford to pay for the private tuition necessary to get their children into university. Many said 16 they could not afford to pay for adequate health care: 17 18 Currently I cannot afford anything special because of lack of the money that is required for 19 normal medical treatment. (Ukrainian male) 21 22 23 I am a fan of Vodnik football club. In the past I never missed a single game but now I cannot 24 afford to go. (Male, Russia) 26 27 3.2 Social Cohesion 28 29 Social cohesion refers to the extent that a society is integrated. One measure of social 31 cohesion is the level of material inequalities in a society (Wilkinson 1996). Social 32 33 inequalities, as measured by the Gini coefficient have increased, with the most significant 34 36 growth being in Russia and Ukraine (Table 4). Levels of trust and fear of crime are also good 37 38 indicators of social cohesion (Phillips 2006). A majority of survey respondents and 39 qualitative case study informants said that their material circumstances had got worse but 41 42 there was some awareness that there were some winners as well as losers. The members of 43 44 one of the female focus groups in Ukraine suggested: In the past the stratification of society 46 was less. 47 48 49 Table 4 about here 51 The responses to the survey questions on trust and fear of crime suggest societies with low 52 53 levels of trust and high fear of crime (Table 4) with over half the survey respondents fearing 54 crime in their home and on the streets. The informants in the qualitative case studies also 56 57 concerned about increasing crime. 58 59 I am also worried -----there are a lot of murders, violence and robberies. (Male, Belarus) URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/reus E-mail: eusoc@essex.ac.uk European Societies Page 10 of 29 Page 10 of 29 1 2 3 Levels of general trust and trust in government and political institutions are relatively low 4 (Sapsford and Abbott 2006) with the least trusted organizations being in political parties 6 7 with less than a quarter of Belarusians, about a sixth of Russians and just over 10 percent of 8 9 Ukrainians trusting them. There were also relatively low levels of trust in the mass media. 11 12 For example, an informant in Belarus, a female newspaper employee told us: There are less 13 14 and less subscriptions to the newspaper. They don’t trust us and they read the paper less. 16 There was a loss faith in government and some nostalgia for the old regime which was seen as 17 18 having been able to ensure social cohesion and economic security. Few of the respondents to 19 the survey rated their present government highly (24.3% in Belarus, 17.2 percent in Russia, 21 22 23 3.9% in Ukraine, whilst over fifty percent rated the Government in the USSR highly. One 24 male focus group clearly blamed the government for the present situation – which they 26 27 evaluated negatively – It is the state that has led us to this, (Male focus group Belarus), and 28 29 others clearly thought that things would be better if there was a return to communism -I liked 31 the regime that was. We lived communism. (Male informant Russia) Others however wanted 32 33 to move forward. My dreams and plans are to have a new government in our country, for 34 36 people to be able to live in a normal way, then productivity will rise and the economic 37 38 situation will improve. (Male informant Chernobyl) Few informants were satisfied with the 39 rate and direction of change. There was a general view that the state was not taking care of its 41 42 citizens. 43 44 3.3 Social Inclusion 46 Social inclusion relates to the integration of individuals into society. The three countries have 47 48 49 high levels of integration at the micro level but there is a lack of social integration into the 51 wider society with some evidence that social exclusion has increased since 1991 (Rose 2009): 52 53 The main thing is that everyone gets along with each other (and) it was better when everyone 54 had the same. (Ukrainian focus group) A majority of respondents voted in elections but less 56 57 than three quarters of Belarusians just two-thirds of Russians and only just over a half of 58 59 Ukrainians expressed pride in their citizenship (Table 5). Active membership of clubs or other organizations was low – well under 10 percent and few regularly participate in religious 10 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/reus E-mail: eusoc@essex.ac.uk Page 11 of 29 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 31 32 33 34 36 37 38 39 41 42 43 44 46 47 48 49 51 52 53 54 56 57 58 59 European Societies worship. Lack of time, social tension and financial factors seemed to be the main reasons for a decline in participation. A Belorussian informant indicated: In the past people gathered in the club, the club was heated, now it is cold in the club, there is no place to go. A number of informants pointed out that bathhouses had been closed down because there was no money to maintain them and the medical experts said that most people did not join sports clubs because they cannot afford the fees. Table 5 about here In sharp contrast at the micro level the vast majority of our respondents had good social support and strong ties with friends and relatives. Over 90 percent of the survey respondents said that they had someone they could share their private feelings and concerns with and around 90 percent said they had some they could rely on in a crisis. Just over 70 percent said that they never felt lonely and a similar proportion said there was someone who would lend them money in an emergency (Table 5). In the qualitative case studies frequent mention was made of the responsibility of supporting and helping members of the family, of visiting the family and being able to rely on the family in times of need. Friends were also seen as a source of support. If I needed help my son and other relatives would rally round. If something happened my sister would give up everything and come and help me. (Female Ukraine) I have one friend. I can count on this friend. (Female Russia) However a small number of people were isolated and did not have family or friends: I have no sisters and my brothers live far away. (Male Belarus). We just greet each other. I do not have friends I would like to spend a holiday with. (Male Russia). 3.4 Conditions for Empowerment Empowerment is the extent to which people are equipped to be and feel in control of their lives. The overwhelming impression from our informants was of a sense of resignation and hopelessness. URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/reus E-mail: eusoc@essex.ac.uk European Societies Page 12 of 29 Page 12 of 29 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 31 32 33 34 36 37 38 39 41 42 43 44 46 47 48 49 51 52 53 54 56 57 58 59 There was hope – now we don’t have it. (Female focus group Ukraine) Have a drink and forget about it. (male focus group Ukraine) Others indicated that they could not take control over their lives because of a lack of financial resources: How can I avoid stress if the money is not enough for anything? (Female Ukraine) ---- you can give up smoking, you should take care of yourself but it does not work. Having a job is the most important thing – a normal well paid job. Nobody has that here. (Male focus group, Belarus) One of the medical experts suggested that lack of control was a major reason for the poor health status of the population: Another factor, which I think has a lot of impact on the health of the population, is the current instability in society and lack of confidence among the population ----. I remember that in my early years in the former Soviet Union I never woke up thinking that tomorrow I would not have enough to eat. There was no sword of Damocles which forced me to think ahead and be anxious about what I would eat the next day and how I would pay the rent. Today the overwhelming majority of the population lives under the sword of Damocles. This constant psycho-emotional negative stress has a negative effect on people’s health status. Few of the survey respondents thought they had any ability to influence political decisions, only just over a third thought they were free to engage in political activities, over 50 percent were afraid of illegal arrest and only around a half thought they had freedom of choice and control (42.7% Ukraine, 49.9% Russia, 56.9% Belarus) although over three-quarter thought they had freedom of speech, freedom to join organisations, freedom of religion and were free to travel (Table 6). Table 7 about here Health or lack of it is an indicator of empowerment impacting on the ability to take control over life and to participate in normal day to day activities. The levels of poor health reported in our survey were very high – especially for women with around a third of men and a half of 12 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/reus E-mail: eusoc@essex.ac.uk Page 13 of 29 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 31 32 33 34 36 37 38 39 41 42 43 44 46 47 48 49 51 52 53 54 56 57 58 59 European Societies women reporting less than good health. (Controlling for age women are significantly more likely to report poor health, chi square P<0.001). Psychosocial health is also a key indicator of not feeling in control of one’s life. In our survey we asked 14 questions that factor into two scales one measuring malaise and one person control (see Appendix 1). Over 50 percent of respondents reported feeling that life is too complicated and a similar proportion reported that they get spells of exhaustion / fatigue. Over 40 percent reported not enjoying their day-to-day activities, feeling under constant strain and having insomnia. Less than 20 percent of men and 10 percent of women reported having no symptoms while over half the respondents report having five or more symptoms and around a fifth having 10 or more. Women are both significantly more likely to report each of the individual symptoms and to have more symptoms on average than men (chi square P<0.001). 4. Subjective Life Satisfaction Social Quality is distinct from both life satisfaction, citizen’s subjective assessment of their social experiences, and quality of society based on objective socio-economic indicators, being based on the articulation of objective and subjective indicators. It provides the space within which social actors can exercise agency, high Social Quality enables individuals to exercise agency to achieve self-realization in a social context. A decline in Social Quality will be associated with a reduced ability of citizens to exercise agency. We have argued in this paper that there is clear objective and subjective evidence that there has been a decline in Social Quality, post 1991, and that all three societies have poor Social Quality with Belarus having the highest and Ukraine the lowest. One objective indicator of the negative impact of the decline in Social Quality is the dramatic decline in life expectancy for men in mid-life and the increase in poor health especially of women (Wallace and Abbott 2009). Subjective indicators of the impact of the decline in Social Quality are a reduction in self reported general satisfaction and happiness (Abbott and Sapsford 2006; Veenhoven, 2001). We computed an index combining the answers to the questions on subjective satisfaction and happiness to form an Index of Subjective Quality of Life. URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/reus E-mail: eusoc@essex.ac.uk European Societies Page 14 of 29 Page 14 of 29 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 31 32 33 34 36 37 38 39 41 42 43 44 46 47 48 49 51 52 53 54 56 57 58 59 First we run regressions, using the entre method for each of the quadrants separately and also tested the variance explained by age and gender to determine which indicators to put in our final model (Tables7 and 8). Age and gender both made a small but significant contribution to variance explained (5.4%) with the younger people and men having a higher subjective quality of life. The variables selected to be indicators of economic security, measuring both relative and absolute poverty, explained 25 percent of the variance, all making a significant contribution, showing, not surprisingly that the poor are less satisfied than the better of.. Those selected to measurer social cohesion, trust variables, fear of crime and satisfaction with political developments, explained 10.8 percent of variance with trust in other people, trust in government and fear of crime all making a significant contribution. The indicators selected to measure social integration explained 13.7 percent of the variance with all except regularly worshipping making a significant contribution, and those that were integrated being more satisfied than those who were not.. The variables, selected to measure feelings of empowerment and control and the ability to exercise agency explained 29.5 percent of the variance with all making a significant contribution and with those reporting good physical and mental health and being able to control and influence their lives being more satisfied. Table 7 about here Next we took all the variables that were significant entered them together, controlling for age gender and country. The total model explained 43 percent of the variance with neither age nor gender making a significant contribution. (There is some indication that the Belarusians’ experience a lower quality of life and the Ukrainian’s a higher one than would be predicted by our model but the Betas are very low and the difference only significant at the 95 percent level. We run a model for each country and confirmed that it held for each with only minor differences (see Table 8). It is clear that economic circumstances and empowerment indicators make the largest contribution with self reported health making the largest contribution, followed by the economic circumstances of the family and control over ones life. Having an adequate income, being physically and mentally healthy and feeling in control are clearly the most important 14 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/reus E-mail: eusoc@essex.ac.uk Page 15 of 29 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 31 32 33 34 36 37 38 39 41 42 43 44 46 47 48 49 51 52 53 54 56 57 58 59 European Societies predictors of subjective well-being. However, trusting other people, pride in citizenship, personal support and close ties are also important. Table 8 about here We computed an Index of Social Quality from the variables that were significant at the 99.9 level. The minimum value on the index was -4.2 and the maximum value +2.7 with 60 percent of the population lying within -/+1SD and 90 percent within -/+1.5SDs of the mean. Less than one percent were more than +2SDs and just under four percent more than -2SDs. The distribution was virtually identical in Russia and Belarus with 80 percent of the population falling within -/+1SDs, slightly skewed to the positive, with the minimum being 3.9 and the maximum in Belarus +2.7 and +2.3 in Russia. The minimum in Ukraine was -4.2 and the maximum +2.2 with nearly 30 percent of the population being more than -1SD from the mean (and 10% -2SDs) and only 10 percent more than +1SD. This suggests that social quality is poorer in Ukraine than in Belarus and Russia and that the vast majority of the population in all three countries share a poor quality of life with some having an extremely poor one with only a few experiencing a better quality of life. 5. Conclusions In this paper we have used the Social Quality model, a model derived from sociological theory, to explore the relationship between the economic and social impact of the transformation in the former Soviet Union. The model specifies both the conditions for wellbeing and the conditions for building and sustaining societies that are able to ensure the wellbeing of their members. We have shown, using qualitative and quantitative data, that a majority of the population have a poor quality of life and good reason to be dissatisfied with their lives. There is a lack of economic security, social cohesion, social integration into the wider society and the conditions for empowerment, leaving many unable to develop capabilities in order to adequately function (Sen 1994). The one remaining source of security for many is the support they get from close family and friends – some do not even have this. What is perhaps surprising is the importance of the physical and psychological conditions for empowerment (physical and psychological health and feeling in control and having influence) URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/reus E-mail: eusoc@essex.ac.uk European Societies Page 16 of 29 Page 16 of 29 1 2 3 for well-being. However, the model specified the conditions for constructing the space for a 4 liveable society and without improvements in the economic circumstances of a majority of 6 7 citizens there is unlikely to be an increase in subjective well being. Material security and 8 9 social cohesion provide the structure within which individuals can build social relations, take 11 12 control of their lives and have good physical and psychological health. 13 14 Objectively the transformation has had a direct impact on the health, wealth and quality of 16 life in all three countries. The majority are ‘looser’ with only a small number of ‘gainers’. 17 18 They are aware of this and dissatisfied but also feel at a loss to know how to change the 19 situation. The transition has also involved a change in ideology – from one where the 21 22 23 collective was emphasised to one based on individual self-reliance and responsibility but in 24 circumstances where many feel that they cannot take responsibility for their lives. 26 27 28 29 Thus in understanding the impact of the transition on citizens it is necessary to understand 31 individuals’ place in the sociological sense of their location within the opportunity structures 32 33 (re) created. A connection has to be made between these larger societal changes – generative 34 36 mechanisms - and their social consequences. Analytically this involves making a distinction 37 38 between system integration or disintegration and social integration or disintegration. Theories 39 of transition and transformation centre mainly on the former instance on changes, 41 42 emphasising structural changes in the economic or political situation. Here we have tried to 43 44 go beyond such explanations by exploring relationships of social integration and including the 46 role of agency as well as structure. Explorations at this level of analysis can give rise to 47 48 49 middle-range typologies which model societal transitions taking into account the role factors 51 at the level of the social and at the level of subjective well being, since the capabilities of 52 53 individual agents to act are embedded in their social as well as material circumstances. 54 56 57 58 59 16 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/reus E-mail: eusoc@essex.ac.uk Page 17 of 29 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 31 32 33 34 36 37 38 39 41 42 43 44 46 47 48 49 51 52 53 54 56 57 58 59 European Societies References Abbott, P. (2007)’Cultural Trauma and Social Quality in Post-Soviet Moldova and Belarus’, East European Politics and Societies 21:219 – 258 Abbott, P. and Sapsford, R. (2006) ‘Happiness and General Satisfaction in post-Soviet Russia and Ukraine’, Journal of Happiness Studies, 7, 251 – 287 Abbott, P. and Wallace, C. (2009) ‘Patterns of Participation in the Formal and Informal Economies of the Commonwealth of Independent States’, International Sociology 39:12 – 38. Abbott, P., Wallace, C. and Beck, M. (2006) ‘Chernobyl: Risk and Uncertainty’, Risk, Health and Society 8: 105 -21. Beck, W., Keizer, M., van der Maeson, L. J. G. and Phillips, D. (2001) General Paper on behalf of the first plenary of the Network Indicators of Social Quality´, Amsterdam: European Foundation on Social Quality Burawoy, M. (2001) ‘Transition without Transformation: Russia's Involuntary Road to Capitalism’, East European Politics and Societies, 15: 269-290. Donovan, N. and Halpern, D. (2002) Life Satisfaction: The State of Knowledge and Implications for Government, London: Strategy Unit. Fehey, T. and Smyth, E. (2004) ‘Do Subjective Indicators Measurer Welfare?’ European Societies, 6: 5 – 27 Herrmann, P. and van der Maesen, L. J. G. (2008) Social Quality and Precarity: Approaching New Patterns of Societal (Dis)Integration, :Munich, Personal Research Paper Archive, 10245, http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/10245 (last accessed 30.05.2009) Land, K., Lamb, V., Meadows, S. and Taylor, A. (2007) ‘Measuring Trends in child Well-being: An Evidence-based Approach’, Social Indicators Research, 80, 105 - 32 van der Maesen, L. and Keizer, M. (2002) From theory to Practice, Working paper of the European Network on Indicators for Social Quality, Amsterdam: European Foundation on Social Quality O’Connor et al 2003 Phillips, D. (2006) Quality of Life: Concepts, Policy and Practice, London and New York: Routledge URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/reus E-mail: eusoc@essex.ac.uk European Societies Page 18 of 29 Page 18 of 29 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 31 32 33 34 36 37 38 39 41 42 43 44 46 47 48 49 51 52 53 54 56 57 58 59 Pickles, J. and Smith, A. (1998) Theorising Transitions: Political Economy of Post- communist Transformations, Abingdon and New York: Routledge. Richardson, D., Hoelscher, P. and Bradshaw, J. (2008) ‘Child Well-being in Central and Eastern European Countries (CEE) and the Commonwealth of Independent States’, Child Indicators Research, 211 – 250. Ritchie, J. And Spence, L. (1993) ‘Qualitative Data Analysis for Applied Research’, in, Bryman, A. and Burgess, R. (eds) Analysising Qualitative Data, London, Routledge. Pridemore, W., Camlin, M. and Cochran, J. (2007) ‘An Interrupted Time-Series Analysis of Durkheim’s Social Deregulation Thesis: The case of the Russian Federation.‘ Justice Quarterly 24:271 – 290. Rose, R. (2009) Understanding Post-Communist Transformations: A Bottom Up Approach, Abingdon and New York: Routledge. Sapsford, R.and Abbott,P. (2006) ‘Trust, Confidence and Social Environment in Post- Communist Societies’, Communist and Post-Communist Societies 39:59 – 71 Saris, W. (2001) ‘What Influences Subjective Well-Being in Russia?, Journal of Happiness Studies, 2:137 –146. Schyns, P. (2001) ‘Income and Satisfaction in Russia’, Journal of Happiness Studies, 2: 173 – 204. Shevchenko, O. (2009) Crisis and the Everyday in Postsocialist Moscow, Bloomington: Indiana Sen, A (1993) Capability and Well-being in Nassabaum, N. and Sen, A. (eds) The quality of Life, Oxford, Clarendon Press. Sztompka, (2002)’ Cultural Trauma: The Other Face of Social Change’, European Journal of Social Theory, 3: 441-465 Veenhoven, R. (2001) ‘Are the Russians as Unhappy as They Say They Are?’ Journal of Happiness Studies, 2: 111 – 136 18 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/reus E-mail: eusoc@essex.ac.uk Page 19 of 29 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 31 32 33 34 36 37 38 39 41 42 43 44 46 47 48 49 51 52 53 54 56 57 58 59 European Societies Wallace, C. and Abbott, P. (2009) The Consequences for Health of System Disintegration and Social Disintegration in the Commonwealth of Independent States, paper given at the European Sociological Association Conference, Lisbon Wilkinson, R. G. (2005) The Impact of Inequality: How to make Sick Societies Healthier, London, and New York: Routledge World Bank (2003) Human Development Report, Washington DC: World Bank. URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/reus E-mail: eusoc@essex.ac.uk European Societies Page 20 of 29 Page 20 of 29 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 31 32 33 34 36 37 38 39 41 42 43 44 46 47 48 49 51 52 53 54 56 57 58 59 Appendix 1 Composition of Scales Fear of Crime Computed from: are you not worried at all, not very worried, somewhat worried, worried about: having things stolen from home; being harassed or threatened on street; being robbed on the street. (Chronbach’s alpha) CA: 70 Satisfaction with Political Development Computed from: how satisfied are you with -------- very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied, very dissatisfied: the way democracy developing; economy developing,; education system; social security’ system; government performs duties in national office; local authorities solving region’s affairs; health system. CA: 0.80 Political influence Computed from agrees, quite agree, rather disagree, disagree: have an influence on national government; have an influence on regional government; take an interest in politics. CA :0.74 Trust Government Computed from to what extent do you personally trust ---- great trust, quite trust, rather distrust, great distrust,: president of country; national government; regional government; political parties. CA: 0.88 Trust Institutions Computed from to what extent do you personally trust ---- great trust, quite trust, rather distrust, great distrust: courts; police; army; trade Unions. CA: 0.78 Social Resource Computed from If you had any of the following problems, is there anyone you could rely on to help you from outside your own household ---- yes/no/not -sure: someone to rely on if feeling depressed; someone to rely on if need help finding a job someone to rely on if need to borrow money to pay urgent bill. CA: 0.7 Personal Support 20 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/reus E-mail: eusoc@essex.ac.uk Page 21 of 29 European Societies European Societies 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 31 32 33 34 36 37 38 39 41 42 43 44 46 47 48 49 51 52 53 54 56 57 58 59 Computed from Here are a few questions about people in your life who can provide you with help or support -------- yes/no/ not sure: someone can really count on to listen when you need to talk; someone can really count on to help you out in a crisis; someone you can totally be yourself with; someone you feel appreciates you as a person; someone can really count on to comfort you when upset. CA: 0.89 Malaise Computed from have you recently experienced the following: unable to concentrate; insomnia; felt under constant strain; often shaking and trembling; frightening thoughts; spells of exhaustion/fatigue; feelings of stress; feeling lonely; loosing confidence in self. CA: 0.77 Control Computed from have you recently experienced the following? felt unable to overcome difficulties; unable to enjoy normal daily activities; dissatisfaction with work; unable to influence things; that life is too complicated.. CA: 0.70 Life Satisfaction Index Computed from General Satisfaction (how satisfied you are, all things considered with your life as a whole, definitely satisfied, quite satisfied, rather dissatisfied, definitely dissatisfied, don’t know, refused and Happiness ( talking all things together, how would you say things are these days – would you say you are, very happy, pretty happy, not too happy, very unhappy, don’t know, refused) URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/reus E-mail: eusoc@essex.ac.uk European Societies Page 22 of 29 Page 22 of 29 1 2 3 Table 1: Sampling Framework for Purposeful Samples for Qualitative Case Studies 4 a) Interviews: Russia and Ukraine –an advantaged and deprived region in each country 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 b) Interviews Chernobyl (Belarus, Russia, Ukraine) Urban Rural Total Region Total Sample Education Low Medium High Low Medium High Men 3 7 3 3 6 3 25 100 Women 3 7 3 3 6 3 25 100 Regional Total 6 14 6 6 12 6 50 Totals for 4 case studies 24 56 24 24 48 24 200 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 c) Medical Experts Total Number 31 Education Low Medium High Total in each country Total in Sample Men 4 8 3 15 45 Women 4 8 3 15 45 Total in each country 8 16 6 30 90 32 33 34 36 37 38 39 41 Country/Region National Regional Local Total Russia – 2 regions + Chernobyl 1 6 9 16 Ukraine– 2 regions +Chernobyl 1 6 9 16 Belarus - Chernobyl 1 2 3 6 Total 3 14 21 38 42 43 44 d) Focus Groups 46 47 48 49 51 52 53 54 56 57 58 59 Country Men 30 -50 Yrs Women 30 -50 Yrs Young People 18 – 29 Yrs Total Groups Russia 2 2 2 6 Ukraine 2 2 2 6 Chernobyl 3 3 ---6 Total Groups 7 7 4 18 22 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/reus E-mail: eusoc@essex.ac.uk Page 23 of 29 European Societies European Societies 1 2 3 * Table 2: Economic Security – Official Statistics and Survey Respondents 4 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 31 *World Bank 2003 32 33 34 36 37 38 39 41 42 43 44 46 47 48 49 51 52 53 54 56 57 58 59 Belarus Russia Ukraine Real GDP 2001 – base year 1989* 87.3 66.5 41.4 Gini Coefficient 2001* 0.26 0.47 0.47 Increase in Gini 2001 compared with 1989* 0.03 0.11 0.13 Economic situation got worse 46.4 49.4 72.3 Disintegration USSR had negative impact on economy 78.6 78.4 82.7 Highly rate state economy times USSR 65.6 61.3 73.4 Highly rate state economy today 15.9 10.7 3.1 Not satisfied with personal income 73.0 77.8 85.8 Not satisfied with house hold income 72.3 75.7 85.4 Economic Situation of family good 10.3 8.6 4.6 Income not/just sufficient for food and clothes 78.3 75.4 87.9 Have at least sometimes to do without basic food 36.3 47.5 66.6 Afford to buy items such as TV 21.7 24.6 12.1 Plot of land for growing food 71.9 68.1 68.3 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/reus E-mail: eusoc@essex.ac.uk European Societies Page 24 of 29 Page 24 of 29 1 2 3 Table 3: Self Reported Material Circumstances-Survey Respondents 4 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 Belarus % Russia % Ukraine % Improvised (insufficient income to purchase basic food) 9.6 13.4 29.7 Poor (income just adequate to purchase basic food and other essentials) 68.7 62.0 58.7 Secure (income adequate to enable purchase of durable goods such as a TV or ‘fridge) 19.4 22.0 10.9 Affluent ( could afford to purchase goods such as a car or flat) 2.2 2.6 1.2 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 31 32 33 34 36 37 38 39 41 42 43 44 46 47 48 49 51 52 53 54 56 57 58 59 24 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/reus E-mail: eusoc@essex.ac.uk Page 25 of 29 European Societies European Societies 1 2 3 Table 4: Indicators of Social Cohesion – Survey Responses 4 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 31 32 33 34 For Peer Review Only Belarus Russia Ukraine Trust the President 70.2 80.1 26.1 Trust the national government 57.6 52.5 21.4 Trust the national parliament 52.6 34.9 15.7 Trust the regional government 51.0 54.2 25.7 Trust the political parties 22.1 17.7 11.9 Trust the courts 51.4 40.2 34.4 Trust the police 51.3 35.5 31.8 Trust the army 79.7 35.5 31.8 Trust the mass media 50.0 31.0 53.8 Trust the church 77.8 62.0 66.2 Trust the trade unions 48.6 31.7 29.8 Trust the majority of people 54.4 59.6 51.2 Fear of crime things stolen from house 54.3 59.8 59.6 Fear of crime – threatened /harassed on street 59.1 62.0 61.4 Fear of Crime – robbed on street 55.5 58.1 58.3 Highly rate government time USSR 56.9 54.7 62.5 Highly rate government today 24.3 17.2 3.9 36 37 38 39 41 42 43 44 46 47 48 49 51 52 53 54 56 57 58 59 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/reus E-mail: eusoc@essex.ac.uk European Societies Page 26 of 29 Page 26 of 29 1 2 3 Table 5: Indicators of Social Inclusion – Survey Respondents 4 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 For Peer Review Only Belarus Russia Ukraine Pride in citizenship 71.6 66.6 52.3 Regularly practices religion 14.9 5.6 16.0 Active member of an organization 9.3 7.7 6.6 Vote in political elections 91.1 84.1 81.4 Friend can discuss things with 78.1 79.9 80.8 Married / living together 61.5 62.7 62.2 Living in a household with at least one other person 84.2 85.2 82.6 Able to borrow money from relatives/friends in an emergency 77.6 74.6 71.2 Some one who will help in a crisis 90.3 90.1 89.5 Some one you can share your private feelings and concerns with 92.2 94.4 93.3 Some one can be totally ones self with 89.9 89.1 90.2 26 27 28 29 31 32 33 34 36 37 38 39 41 42 43 44 46 47 48 49 51 52 53 54 56 57 58 59 26 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/reus E-mail: eusoc@essex.ac.uk Page 27 of 29 European Societies European Societies 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 31 32 33 34 For Peer Review Only 36 37 38 39 41 42 43 44 46 47 48 49 51 52 53 54 56 57 58 59 Table 6: Indicators of the Conditions for Empowerment Belarus Russia Ukraine Have freedom of speech 82.1 86.1 85.1 Free to join organisation 84.0 89.7 84.8 Free to travel 79.1 77.5 70.1 Can influence National Government 11.6 9.5 8.4 Free to take an interest in politics 37.7 42.6 34.2 Free to join a religion 78.5 76.2 87. Think have freedom of choice and control 56.9 49.9 42.7 Less than good health – self report M 29.3 W49.5 M 37.0 W 43.3 M 36.3 W 62.5 27 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/reus E-mail: eusoc@essex.ac.uk Total adjusted R2 0.250 Variable B Beta SE Constant .5.768 .138 Economic situation of family (good to bad) .713 .361*** .026 Evaluation Material living conditions (good to bad) .191 .084*** .031 Basic Food (1 all ways, other) .262 .134*** .025 Total adjusted R2 0.108 Variable B Beta SE Constant 6.994 .148 Satisfaction with political developments Scale 1 (low to high) -.071 .-021 .007 Most people can be trusted (low to high) -.187 -.123*** .026 Trust government scale1( low to high) -.030 -.069*** .010 Trust institutions scale1 (low to high) -.011 -.026 .010 Fear of crime scale1 (low fear to high) -.029 -.063 .008 Total adjusted R2 0.137 Variable B Beta SE Constant 3.381 .141 Active member of organisation (1 yes, 2 no) -.004 -.002 .029 Regularly worship (1 no, 2 yes) .035 .007 .073 Pride in citizenship (1 no, 2 yes) -.299 -.185*** .024 Social resource scale1 (high to low) .203 .162*** .020 Personal Support scale1(high to low) .193 .158*** .020 Married/ live as married 1 yes, 2 no .305 .098*** .046 Employed 1 no, 2 yes -.031 -.077*** .002 European Societies Page 28 of 29 1 2 3 Table 7: Influences on Subjective Quality of Life– Survey Data Respondents, Dependent Variable 4 Index Computed from General Satisfaction and Happiness (High to Low) 6 Biological 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 Total adjusted R2 0.054 Variable B Beta SE Constant .841 .048 Age (in years 18 -99) -.012 -.204*** .001 Gender (1 make/2 female) -.198 -.098*** .023 Material Security 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 Social Cohesion 24 26 27 28 29 31 32 33 34 36 Social Integration 37 38 39 41 42 43 44 46 47 48 49 Conditions for empowerment 51 52 53 54 56 57 58 59 Total adjusted R2 Variable B Beta SE Constant 5.510 .120 Political Influence Scale1 (low to high) -.024 -.038*** .008 Malaise Scale1 (low to high) -.065 -.098*** .014 Freedom of choice and control (high to low) .211 .158*** .017 Self reported health (poor to good) -.473 -.290*** .022 Control Scale1 (low to high) -.199 -.214*** .010 Sig.* ** P<0.001 ** P<0.01 * P<0.05 1. See Appendix 1 for construction of scales 28 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/reus E-mail: eusoc@essex.ac.uk Page 29 of 29 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 31 32 33 34 36 37 38 39 41 42 43 44 46 47 48 49 51 52 53 54 56 57 58 59 European Societies Table 8: Influences on Subjective Quality of Life– Survey Data Respondents, Dependent Variable Index Computed from General Satisfaction and Happiness Variable Total adjusted R21 0.430 B Beta SE Constant 5.380 .383 Age -.000 -.004 .001 Gender .087 .023 .037 Economic Security Economic situation of family For Peer Review Only.386 .193*** .029 Evaluation Material living conditions ..171 .074*** .035 Basic Food .169 .086*** .028 Social cohesion Dissatisfaction with political developments Scale -.018 -.055* .008 Most people can be trusted -.105 -.067*** .019 Trust government scale2 .027 .053* .008 Trust institutions scale -.003 -.-005 .08 Fear of crime scale -.005 -.010 .006 Social inclusion Pride in citizenship -.140 -.086*** .020 Social resource scale .017 .014 .017 Personal Support scale34 ..107 .086*** .017 Married .275 .088*** .037 Employed -.022 -.007 .038 Social and cultural empowerment Malaise -.054 -.081*** .010 Freedom of choice and control .119 .086*** .017 Self reported health -.358 -.218*** .023 Control -.143 -.150*** .014 Belarus -.124 -.035* .045 Ukraine .091 .027* .046 Sig.* ** P<0.001 ** P<0.01 * P<0.05 * See Appendix 1 for construction of scales 1 R2 Belarus 0.37; Russia 0.43; Ukraine 0.46 when models run for each country separately 2 Only significant in Russia P< 0.001 on country models 3 Not significant in Belarus on country models 4 Not significant in Ukraine no country models URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/reus E-mail: eusoc@essex.ac.uk