Making Ends Meet in Contemporary Russia: Secondary Employment, Subsidiary Agriculture and Social Networks by Simon s> Clarke (review)

Abstract

REVIEWS 991 It is possible to take issue with Gaidar's interpretation of Russian history. But that sort of debate is not the point. This short book is worth reading because the ideas it contains are cogent and skilfullyargued, and above all because it sets out the thinkingof a man who is, as he saysof Stolypin, a rare example of a Russian statesmanwho has sought to limit the role of the state. Centrefor Russian andEastEuropean Studies PHILIP HANSON University ofBirmingham Clarke, Simon. MakingEndsMeetin Contemporagy Russia:Seconday Employment, Subsidiary Agriculture andSocialNetworks. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, and Northampton, MA, 2002. Xi+ 283 pp. Tables. Notes. Bibliography. Index. C59.95. THERE is a developing literature applying the so-called 'survival strategy' hypothesis to contemporary Russia. In examining the role of the secondary job market, home production and the traditional Russian communality (obshchina) this book offersan importantresponse to that literature.Assuming household survival strategies to reflect the set of options households can choose from in order to secure their survival, Clarke ultimately rejects the proposition that Russian households adopt such strategies.He argues,firstly, that impoverishedRussians are alreadyutilizingwhat resourcesthey can and are thereforeunable to do other than lower their consumption expenditurein response to income shocks and, secondly, households themselves do not, in any case, adopt strategies.The pervasiveuse of these resourcesis said to be a culturallegacy of the Soviet period. The motivating argumentsand overview of findingsare neatlypresented in chapter one, along with a further key contribution of the book- the comprehensive use of data sources. Recognizing the questionable quality of much of the data emanating from Russia, Clarke does not simply rely upon his own centres (ISITO) four-city survey, instead, he compares the findings from all of the main socio-economic datasets for the period official Goskomstat data, the All-Russian Centre for Public Opinion Research (VTsIOM) surveys,and the data from the Russian LongitudinalMonitoring Survey (RLMS). Using these datasets, in the following three chapters, the book addressesthe extent to which secondaryemployment, home production and the reliance on private transfers facilitate a means of survival for impoverishedhouseholds. Perhapsbecause of the detailed cross comparisonsof data sources, chapter two is a somewhat laborious trawl through various survey responses, cross tabulations, regressions and anecdotal evidence relating to participation in secondary employment. The evidence all points the same way, suggesting that, while secondary employment is important for many Russians, it is not strategicallyaccessed by the poorest households in order to 'survive'. Given ourknowledgeof the secondarylabourmarketin Russiaanditshuman capital requirements in particular this is the least surprising of Clarke's findings. Prompted by a series of sensible hypotheses, chapter three investigates the 'myth of the urban peasant' and concludes that home production does not 992 SEER, 82, 4, 2004 contribute to the relief of poverty and thus cannot be thought of as representing an option in a survivalstrategy. The role of private transfersis investigated in the penultimate chapter where the idea that private transfers fulfil a survival role is also jettisoned. In short, economically vulnerable households are not able to mobilize privatesupportnetworks,any more than they can access the secondarylabour marketor increase home production, in order to supplement their household income. Having examined these issues individually,the final chapter draws the analysistogether before concluding, powerfully, that the concept of the 'survival strategy' is not relevant for contemporary Russia. Faced with an income deficit, the poorest Russian households have no option but to reduce consumption expenditure. Despite the compelling thrustof the overallstorythere are a number of less convincing aspects. A more interesting, and perhaps policy relevant, interpretation of the survivalmechanism might have involved examining to what extent these resources capture the set of options open to and used by households, across the income distribution,to stabilize their wellbeing when faced by economic hardship.In a countrywhere the incidence of poverty has approached 50 per cent Clarke'spreoccupation with the lowest income decile is unjustified empirically as well as theoretically and is not supported by appropriatestatisticalanalysis.The observationthat the poorest Russians do not increase home production is not inconsistent with the observation that other households strategically adapt their use of the dacha in response to changing income. Simplybecause the bottom decile are resourceconstrained does not mean that the resourceperseis not used rationallyto...