State University – Higher School of Economics Alexander Tatarko

1. State University – Higher School of EconomicsAlexander Tatarko A Study of Perceived SocialCapital in a Multicultural Society: the Case of Russia (Moscow, Russia)

2. The aim of this research is to examine how social capital is related to individuals’ economic attitudes within Russia’s different ethnic groups. Inasmuch as social capital, in this study, was conceived at the societal (macro) level, we chose to measure it using the following indicators: • Trust; • Tolerance towards out-group members; • Civil Identity.

3. Table 1. Sample Composition in the Study of Social Capital of Members of Different Ethnic Groups in Russia

4. QuestionnairePart 1. Social capital 1. Trust Level. This indicator was an arithmetic mean of two questions aimed to appraise individuals’ general trust/mistrust of people. The questions were taken from the World Values Survey questionnaire. 2. Civil Identity Indicators. Two civil-identity characteristics were measured on a 5-score scale: 2.1. Saliency of Civil Identity. The respondents were to answer the question “To what extent do you feel you are a member of your State?” using a 5-score scale. 2.2. Valence (positivity level) of Civil Identity. The respondents were to answer the question “What kind of sensation evokes with you the awareness that you are a citizen of your State (Russian Federation)?” choosing among the following five answers: (1) a sense of pride; (2) a sense of calm confidence; (3) a sense of indifference; (4) a sense of injury; (5) a sense of humiliation. Those options were then given the following coded scores: 5– sense of pride, 4 – sense of calm confidence, 3 – sense of indifference, 2 – sense of injury, 1 – sense of humiliation.

5. QuestionnairePart 1. Social capital 3. Tolerance towards out-group members. This indicator was calculated as an arithmetic mean of four questions allowing one to appraise the respondents’ tolerance in several dimensions.

6. QuestionnairePart 2. Economic Attitudes 4. Attitudes concerning economic realities, economic notions. A questionnaire was used comprising 14 questions allowing one to appraise the respondents’ attitudes to economic realities. Answers to the questions were given based on a five-score system and were combined into the following three scales: - ‘Interest in the economic affairs’ α=0,8 (questions such as “To what extent are you interested in the state of affairs in our country’s economy?”, “How often do you watch programs about our country’s economic policies in the mass media?”); - ‘The importance of money and property’ α=0,7 (questions such as “How important is money for you, do you think?”, “Will you please appraise the extent to which you desire to own property such as a flat, a bank account, stocks, etc.?”); - ‘Willingness to take an economic risk’ α=0,8 (questions such as “Will you please appraise the extent of your willingness to take an economic risk in order to increase your income?”, “Will you please appraise the level of economic risk you consider to be optimal for you?”). 5. Satisfaction with one’s material condition. The respondents were asked to agree or disagree with the statement “I am satisfied with my level of material wellbeing” on a 7-score scale, from “disagree” to “fully agree”.

7. Table 1. The Significance of Differences in Social Capital Indicators for Russians and Chechens according to Student’s T-Test

8. Table 2. The Significance of Differences in Economic Attitudes between Russians and Chechens according to Student’s T-Test

9. Table 3. The Social Capital Indicators in relation to the Indicators of Economic Attitudes in the Russian Sample (N=226) Note: * р<0.05; ** р<0.01; *** р<0.001;

10. Table 4. The Social Capital Indicators in relation to the Indicators of Economic Attitudes in the Chechen Sample (N=106) Note: * р<0.05; ** р<0.01; *** р<0.001;

11. To evaluate the perceived social capital of various social institutions a modified semantic differential was used. We developed a modification of the semantic differential enabling us to reconstruct a group structure of notions about the social capital levels of various institutions. The technique involves the use of a semantic differential whose scales correspond to the principal components of social capital: trust, social cohesion, tolerance, and civil identity. The respondents were asked to evaluate on a scale 19 social/societal institutions in conformity with six basic spheres of social/societal interaction (from the family and friends up to international institutions). The results of scale-scoring evaluation were processed then using a standard procedure: the results were subjected to factor analysis, the revealed factors were named, the factor weights of scale-scoring evaluation objects (various institutions) were calculated; then the scale-scoring evaluation objects, in conformity with their weights, were placed in the spaces of the revealed factors which were given names.

12. Figure 1. Semantic Space Delineating the Evaluation of Social Capital by the Russians in the Russian Federation Factor 2 «Social support» I III Factor 1 «Value of a particular individual» II IV

13. Figure 2. Semantic Space Delineating the Evaluation of Social Capital by the Chechens in the Russian Federation Factor 2 «Social support» I III Factor 1 «Value of a particular individual» II IV

14. CONCLUSIONS 1. The Russians’ social capital indicators differ from those of the Chechens. If the level of trust with members of the two groups is similarly low, the indicators of tolerance to out-groups and the indicators of civil identity salience and positivity are higher with the Russians. 2. The social capital of both ethnic groups correlates with the economic attitudes and notions. The correlations are positive, i.e. the social capital is related positively to ‘interest in the economic affairs’, ‘the importance of money and property’, ‘willingness to take an economic risk’, and ‘satisfaction with material conditions’. 3. The revealed correlations have similarities as well as differences. The similarity lies in the fact that in both ethnic groups the level of trust correlates positively with ‘interest in the economic affairs’. The difference consists in the fact that, with the Russians, civil identity measurements are related to the economic attitudes and notions but with the Chechens they are not related at all. 4. We assume that the differences in civil identity should manifest themselves in different attitudes towards the country’s social institutions. A negative perception of social institutions ‘breaks off’ a connection between the social capital and economic activity of citizens. This was graphically shown in our comparing the Chechens with the Russians.