Higher education in Soviet and Russian welfare states: hybridization, continuity and change

ABSTRACT

This research explores the interrelations of higher education and welfare state models in the USSR of the 1960-1980s and Russia of the 2000-2020s. We first address the extent to which the provision of higher education aligns with the key imperatives of welfare redistribution: eligibility, state-market balance, and equality. Second, we schematize the values – instrumental, positional, intrinsic – of higher education that influenced well-being in the Soviet Union and Russia. We argue that the provision of higher education in these two state regimes complies with the political economy of two welfare models, suggesting a continuity across socialist and corporatist traditions. In the USSR, higher education was a part of a hybrid comprehensive-corporatist welfare model. Formally a universal right, it can be conceptualized as a state asset and a privilege attached to the class, entailing high intrinsic value. Higher education provision in Russia aligns with the conservative pattern while preserving traits of the socialist past and liberal transition. State commitment in the provision of public higher education and moderate marketization frame the hybrid nature of higher education as a social right and commodity with high instrumental and positional values.

KEYWORDS:

• Higher education
• welfare state
• post-Soviet transition
• Russian higher education

Acknowledgements

We sincerely thank Mikael Börjesson, Tobias Dalberg, Manja Klemenčič, and especially Mitchell Stevens for their comments on the earlier versions of the article.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 Based on Rosstat data (accessed August 5, 2020), (https://rosstat.gov.ru/) and OECD (2019), Pensions at a Glance 2019: OECD and G20 Indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/b6d3dcfc-en.

2 However, according to World Bank data, only the US could surpass the USSR in tertiary enrollment ratios during the 1970-s – 1980-s. URL: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.TER.ENRR (accessed January 15, 2021)

3 Authors' calculations based on HSE University. 2020. “Data from: Evaluation of social tension risks and measures proposed to increase social sustainability” (dataset). Accessed September 10, 2020. Available upon request.

4 0.8% in 2010, authors’ calculations based on Rosstat Database (accessed August 5, 2020), https://rosstat.gov.ru/ and Roskazna (accessed August 5, 2020). https://roskazna.gov.ru/

5 Authors’ calculations based on Rosstat Database (accessed August 1, 2020). https://rosstat.gov.ru/

6 A leading higher education institution is a special legislative status (Ministry of Higher education and Science decree №1272), guaranteeing advanced funding and increased autonomy in teaching standards. Authors’ calculations based on data on 896 (53 of which are the leading institutions) public institutions from the Monitoring of higher education institutions’ performance Database, 2020 (accessed June 1, 2021). http://indicators.miccedu.ru/monitoring/?m=vpo

Additional information

Funding

The reported study was funded by Russian Foundation for Basic Research, project number 20-313-90058.

Notes on contributors

Ekaterina Shibanova

Ekaterina Shibanova is a Researcher at the Institute of Education, Higher School of Economics, Moscow. Her main research interests lie in the sociology and political economy of education, with a focus on the governance of higher education systems.

Sergey Malinovskiy

Sergey Malinovskiy is a Researcher and the Deputy Director at the Institute of Education, Higher School of Economics, Moscow. His main research areas are the political economy of higher education, educational pathways and access to educational opportunities.