Risk management and Russian
society
Simo Mannila
National Institute for Health and Welfare
Aleksanteri Institute University of Helsinki,
28 Oct 2014
Structure of the presentation
• Risk: various theoretical frames of reference
• Russian risk society
• Informal security regime and some empirical ideas
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?
The concept of ”insurance society”
• ”Insurance society” concept by Francois Ewald 1984
– directly relevant for social policy-making
• Link with corporatist regime? Insurance as a form of
risk pooling: for those with a ”social package” i.e.
employer-related social schemes?
• Development depends on the future of social
dialogue? Is there a competition of social policy
regimes: potential convergence towards neoliberal
models?
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
Risk management strategies / WB
(1) Prevention: reduction of the probability of a downside risk (e.g. lifelong learning, innovation, social
dialogue, development of buffering social protection)
(2) 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)
(3) Coping with the risk that has occurred: e.g. income
loss coped with dissaving, migration, increased work,
reduced consumption, various (also social) transfers
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
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)
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?
Risk and Russian society
• Russian society is a risk society to be defined in empirical
terms: risk of wars, some crime (incl. terror attacks),
economic shocks (regional, branch-specific, general),
stochastic law enforcement (e.g. occupational safety)
increased morbidity and mortality at individual and family
level
• Is this reflected in the concept of social policy-making? Is
there a risk management aspect in the design of social
policy? No? Whose risks are ”managed” by policy-making at
various levels
• What risks are perceived and who defines the risks? Does
the elite have different risks from those of some parts of the
population?
Perception of risks > informal security regime
• Different perception and management of risks by different
parts of the society – is this true?
• The concept of informal security regime: risk management
schemes of those with low trust in the government and its
social policies > reliance on traditional family and other
informal networks
• Develops due to less coping mechanisms among poor people
for various types of schocks
• Less influence on formal and informal institutions, limited
voice > dependent security, clientelization (”putinism”?)
• Reduced social capital > short-term orientation in life, no
long-term perspectives and general risk avoidance > poverty
culture
• Risk-taking is generally good for the economic development
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
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?
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)
Final comments
• Various theoretical frameworks of risk can (and should) be merged
• Several middle-range empirical hypotheses to be drawn on the
concept of risk
• Global frames of reference available, a possibility to comparative
studies
• Combining various disciplinary fields of research on Russian society
• Links between formal and informal security regimes: is increased
formality as a characteristic of modernity, as expected earlier?
Findings from the developing countries contradict this – hybrid or
syncretic forms instead? Are we all moving towards risk societies and
partly informal regime?
• But: the perception of risks is now reduced in the Russian
Federation, due to the return of the national self-image as a super
power – return to the question who defines the risks and how?
Thank you!