Ronald Inglehart (University of Michigan, Higher School of Economics)
"Evolutionary Modernization and Cultural Change"
Ronald Inglehart is an established American political scientist, President of World Value Survey Association, Johan Skytte Prize in Political Science 2011 winner. Now he is Amy and Alan Lowenstein Professor in Democracy, Democratization and Human Rights at the University of Michigan and Professor at the Higher School of Economics, and also the Scientific Supervisor of the LCSR.
I interpret empirical findings from more than 100 countries, in the light of a revised version of modernization theory, based on evolutionary principles.
Christian Welzel (Leuphana University, Higher School of Economics)
"Human Empowerment and the Sustainability Challenge"
Christian Welzel is a leading professor of LCSR. He is also the Vice President of the World Values Survey Association in Stockholm, Sweden, and the Chair for Political Culture Research at the Leuphana University in Germany, as well as Adjunct Professor at Jacobs University in Bremen, Germany.
Abstract: Human empowerment is a multi-component process, driven among other things by technological progress and emancipative values. Interestingly, the two components have opposing effects on environmental sustainability: while technological progress increases environmental damage, emancipative values enhance environmental activism and, thus, environmental quality. Ironically, even though emancipative values emerge from technological progress, their beneficial environmental effects outmatch the malicious effects of technological progress. For this reason, human empowerment and ecological sustainability are reconcilable.
Eduard Ponarin (Higher School of Economics)
"Institutionalization of official nationalisms in the Volga-Urals region"
Eduard Ponarin is the director of the LCSR. He is also a Professor at HSE in Saint-Petersburg at the Department of Sociology. Professor Ponarin holds a PhD in Sociology from the University of Michigan, USA. The key topics of his research are nationalism, ethnicity and religiosity.
Abstract: The article addresses the issue of ethnic and civic nationalism in the Volga-Urals region of the Russian Federation. Using the case of the Tatar populations of Tatarstan and Bashkortostan, I investigate whether titular and non-titular groups differ in the levels of nationalist attitudes, as well as in the factors of their development. I discuss the federal design in Russia and highlight some historical factors, including religion, which shaped its development. Using the data of mass surveys conducted in Tatarstan and Bashkortostan in 2005 and 2011, I proceed to statistical analysis. The results of structural equation modeling indicate the presence of a coherent pattern of Tatar nationalism within the Volga-Urals region. However, the explanatory factors of Tatar nationalism in the two republics and in the two chosen time points differ. I discuss the differences in the final part of the paper. In particular, I conclude that Islam plays a greater role in the Tatar identity within Tatarstan and that Tatars in Bashkortostan have become more accepting of the Bashkortostan cause between 2005 and 2011.
Joshua Kjerulf Dubrow (Polish Academy of Sciences)
"Intersectionality and Socio-economic Status: Analysis of Cross-national Survey Data"
Joshua Dubrow is an associate professor at the Institute of Philosophy and Sociology, Polish Academy of Sciences. He holds a PhD in Sociology from the Ohio State University and now Dr. Dubrow is also a lecturer at the University of Warsaw and Graduate School for Social Research (IFiS-PAN).
Abstract: In this presentation I analyze concepts and theories of intersectionality using cross-national survey data. While there are various strands of intersectionality as concept, theory and paradigm, there are three principles common to all: (a) Individuals belong to multiple demographic categories, so that the same individual has a specific gender, an ethnicity, and a social class position, among others; (b) some categories provide advantages and some disadvantages, with each having roots in the social stratification structure; and (c) each of these intersections influence thoughts and actions. Intersectionality arose from gender studies and over the last twenty years has increased in popularity, attaining the status of “buzz-word.” Yet, only now are social scientists beginning to incorporate intersectionality into their quantitative research and to date there are few empirical examples featuring results from cross-national surveys. Basic questions remain unexplored. As such, my main research questions are: Why use an intersectional approach? and Does accounting for intersectionality change how social scientists view the relationship between social groups and their socio-economic status? I use the European Social Survey pooled across multiple time periods for a limited set of countries to explore two theories of the relationship between intersectional groups comprised of gender, ethnicity and social class and their socio-economic status: cumulative disadvantage and group-specific disadvantage. Applying regression analysis with interaction terms allows us to determine the extent to which intersectionality matters for each of these theories.
Roberto Foa (Harvard University) and Anna Nemirovskaya (HSE)
Internal Empires: Politics and Society on the Frontier
Roberto Foa is a LCSR research fellow. He is also a PhD candidate at the Department of Government at Harvard University.
Anna Nemirovskaya is a LCSR senior research fellow and professor at the HSE.
Abstract: How do long-term historical processes of settlement affect social, political values and institutions? Perhaps one of the best known arguments is the ‘frontier thesis’ of American historian Frederick Jackson Turner, which attributed the greater egalitarianism, individualism, and social cooperation of the American west to the conditions of frontier life. However, despite the resilience of this thesis within sociology and political science, it has not been subject to a rigorous cross-country examination. Does it constitute a description of the social norms and institutions of the western United States, or is it one manifestation of a more general ‘frontier phenomenon’, found in other times and places?
Using data from the latest round of the World Values Surveys, this article examines data on the nature of social relations in frontier zones in four countries: Brazil, Russia, Canada and the United States. Taking a wide range of survey items, we find that higher levels of voluntary activity, social trust, tolerance of outgroups, and civic protest are distinctive features of frontier life, and not simply a feature of the American historical experience. Consistent with the 'frontier thesis' literature, we find that frontier society is universally associated with a greater tendency to individualism and spontaneous social organization.
Jon Miller (University of Michigan)
The Development of Ideological Partisanship in the United States: An examination of the life experiences of Generation X
Jon D. Miller is Research Scientist and Director of the International Center for the Advancement of Scientific Literacy, Institute for Social Research. University of Michigan. He is also a Visiting Professor at Graduate University of the China Academy of Sciences
Abstract: Over the last half of the 20th century, the political system of the United States changed from a two-party system that was largely devoid of ideology to a polarized ideological political system. This paper will summarize the major dimensions of this transformation using data taken from the last 34 years of the CBS/New York Times national surveys. Building of this summary, data from the Longitudinal Study of American Youth (LSAY) will examine the transmission and growth of ideological partisanship in Generation X over the last 25 years. The analysis will use a series of structural equation models. The paper will conclude with a discussion of the relative roles of parents, religion, schools, and the political climate in shaping the political values of young adults.
Anna Andreenkova (Institute for Comparative Social Research)
"Political Change in Russia and Post-Soviet Countries: Unique Paths and Common European Trends in Political Attitudes and Behaviour"
Anna Andreenkova (PhD in Political Science) is a deputy director of the Institute for Comparative Social Research (CESSI). She is also the Coordinator of the European Social Survey in Russia.
Abstract: The key question of the analysis in this paper will be whether post-Soviet countries join European family in respect of political values, attitudes and political behavior for 20 years old reforms. The analysis shows that this region is moving along with general European trends in political life but the differences are still substantial, and the division into “West and East” on political indicators are clearly visible. One of the major differences of post-Soviet region and older democracies was fond in non-electoral political participation. It is much lower in post-Soviet democracies than in other parts of Europe (25% total compared to over 50%). And this gap persists for the last 10 years not getting smaller according to ESS data. If non-electoral participated in “old democracies” is relatively stable, the participation in post-Soviet region is even slightly declining - which raise important issue of the stability of these democracies and its future prospects. We found more similarities in the political values and attitudes between post-Soviet countries and other parts of Europe than are usually expected. An these similarities tend to increase over time –the example is the views and demands of European population for social equality, fair distribution of resources, generally great importance of fairness as social value although this value derived from different historical and political traditions and experiences (concept of welfare state in Nordic countries, socialist state in Eastern Europe and post-Soviet countries). More similarities between countries were found in the “input” part of political system (interest to politics, consumption of political media, some basic political attitudes), than in participation and the “output” (evaluation of the effectiveness of political system in general and particular government). If in older democracies “input” variables (like interest to politics) are positively related to political involvement and higher satisfaction with democracy, higher political support, in Russia in particular it is in opposite - negatively related. The latest trend persists for all years of ESS and allows to explain a lot in the raise of mass protest actions of the most well-off and unsatisfied groups of population in Russia and some other countries of the region.
Igor Zadorin (ZIRCON) and Victor Moisov (ZIRCON)
"Integration Moods of CIS countries: first wave of extended Eurasian Barometer"
Victor Moisov is a researcher at the ZIRKON Research group.
Abstract: An international research consortium “Eurasian Monitor” with the Eurasian Development Bank (EDB) conducted an investigation of integration attitudes among citizens of the post-Soviet space in April-May of 2012. The project called “The Integration Barometer EDB” includes representative national surveys carried out in 10 countries of the CIS and also in Georgia. More than 13,000 people (from 950 to 2000 in each country) were interviewed.
It was the first time that such a large survey of public opinion in the CIS countries devoted to the post-Soviet integration (particularly, the establishment of economic and cooperative ties, social and business contacts, cultural interaction) had been conducted. The research revealed a detailed picture of the CIS citizen’s preferences in the various aspects of integration and cooperation of the region. It is supposed that the survey “The Integration Barometer EDB” will be held annually as a monitoring research. This will give an opportunity to evaluate the long-term trends in public opinion between citizens of the CIS countries.
Have you spotted a typo?
Highlight it, click Ctrl+Enter and send us a message. Thank you for your help!
To be used only for spelling or punctuation mistakes.