The study of social capital as a mechanism of consolidation in a multiethnic society

Svinukhova Yuliya Nikolaevna Scientific Associate Institute for Social and Economic Research of Ufa Scientific Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences 450000, Russia, Republic of Bashkortostan, Ufa, Prospekt Oktyabrya str., 71 s.ioulia@mail.ru Other publications by this author

This study was carried out within the framework of the state assignment UFIC RAS 075-00570-24-01 for 2024 and for the planned period of 2025 and 2026.

Introduction.

In the context of modern challenges and "external" threats, the identification of mechanisms for consolidating society is becoming one of the critically important areas of scientific research in the field of social management and improving public relations. In turn, the need for this search initiates the study of such an object as social capital. Because it is its nature and structural elements that greatly contribute to unifying processes and maintaining order in society. Thus, one of the main theorists of social capital, F. Fukuyama, identifies responsibility, the ability to interact, trust, and moral obligation as the key to successful development in the basis of stability and well-being of modern societies, along with rational elements of contract and economic expediency ^[1]. In addition, the use of the category of social capital in analyzing the current development of Russian society becomes a necessary task that meets the goals of a multi-pronged identification of prospects and benchmarks, including the allocation of social resources or non-economic factors for the further development of Russian society and its consolidation. The functions of social capital are diverse. However, with regard to the analysis of the macro–level of its existence, the priority is to consider its implementation in the function of social integration - bringing society together, ensuring the possibility of uniting to achieve and realize socially important tasks and benefits. At the same time, the quality of the institutional environment itself is crucial for the intensification of social capital at the macro level.

The purpose of this study is to identify the relevant structure of elements for assessing social capital at the macro level, contributing to social cohesion, taking into account the ethnic diversity of the regions and the current conditions of the Russian Federation (RF).

From a practical point of view, the diagnosis and assessment of the elements of social capital is the first step towards managing its capabilities.

Literature review. Theoretical and methodological basis for the study of macro-level social capital in the context of polyethnicity. Despite the urgency of the issue of social consolidation, this very concept (in the sense of strengthening, rallying and uniting to achieve a common goal) is considered relatively new in Russian sociological science and is distinguished from the classical understanding of integration (G. Spencer, E. Durkheim, T. Parsons). At the same time, most often only its individual conceptual and practical aspects act as the object of research. Thus, in ^[2-7], specific consolidating factors and factors of the disintegration of Russian society are identified, both in retrospect and identical to the modern agenda. They are most clearly identified in the works of V.I. Dobrenkov, V.V. Lokosov, V.D. Roik and M.A. Yudina, in the works of E.A. Ageeva devoted to the social consolidation of society as a political phenomenon ^[8-9]. As a rule, researchers include factors of both political and economic order, as well as value factors. As before, factors that can have an ambiguous and even negative impact on the consolidation processes in Russia today include, first of all:

– ideological chaos, a kind of cultural trauma against the background of a clash of civilizational, traditional values with those introduced from the outside ^{[8, 5]};

– the continuing high level of social and regional differentiation;

– difficulty in accessing socially significant goods and services;

– maintaining high rates of the working poor and poverty of families with children;

– corruption and lack of empathy , etc.

But it is obvious that not only the smoothing of strong social and property inequality and not every pronounced civic engagement and participation are the sources of consolidation. Also, without an appropriate level of trust formed in society, it is impossible to consolidate it. Trust in the main institutions and authorities, public associations and movements, combined with a high level of group and civic identity and tolerance between peoples, also provide the ground on which all kinds of unifying ideas can be implemented in the most successful form, and they are invariably included in the circle of indicators of the stability of society. Thus, within the framework of the system of maximum critical values of the state of society, it is shown that if the level of public confidence in the central government is below 50%, in the army - 40%, and more than 40% of its citizens are not satisfied with the socio–political structure of society as a whole, then this condition characterizing the social system "... makes it extremely vulnerable to external and internal threats" ^[10]. Because of this, it is legitimate to shift the search for an additional base for the growth of development potential and consolidation to the plane of strengthening social capital. The methodological position that it is the developed social capital of a society that can provide the basis for the long-term maintenance of social order is also important here. None of the studies we have analyzed on the issues of social stability and consolidation denies the special role of trust in this process as the basis of social capital and the "universal cultural characteristic of society" ^[1]. The cognitive and relational aspects of social capital are intertwined in trust. Thus, P. Bourdieu identifies a common, basic and universal property of social capital – conversion, the ability, through contacts of a developed social network, to transform into other forms of capital, receive benefits and influence, including in the political sphere. In turn, M. Granovetter points out that a well-developed network of weak social ties (outside of kinship and friendship) prevents isolation of a person and increases the effectiveness of socialization in society. While social norms and trust in the social capital system provide opportunities for cooperation, collaboration and interaction at various levels. On the contrary, a decrease in their level and quality, and segmentation act as a detonator of civil disobedience and disintegration. Moreover, in most of the available research, regardless of which practical aspects of consolidation are being worked out – whether it is the interaction of national cultures in a multi-ethnic state, value bases, political aspects, or the development of practices for the social consolidation of urban and local communities in the context of the development of digital communications, etc., the thesis remains the original, unchangeable and universal It is precisely the low level of social capital that limits the consolidation potential ^[2]. Therefore, in the context of the modern agenda, it is important to study and evaluate such indicators of the state of society that assess the social situation or the ground for "rewiring the ideological and value contour of the country" ^[4] and the elements of macro-level social capital included in the system, such as the level of institutional and interpersonal trust, loyalty to the state, mutual respect and tolerance of various social groups., civil and national identity of the population in the regions of Russia.

In most studies conducted by social sciences and humanities, social capital is considered as a specific intangible, social resource for the progress of society. Thus, it has been proved that social capital, characterized by a high level of trust and social ties, plays an important role in the formation of new economic opportunities, acting as a factor of economic growth, income growth and public welfare (Zafar Tasnim, F. Fukuyama) ^{[1, 11]}. But not only that. In a multinational state, which is Russia, social capital is still able to become a resource for adaptation and tolerance of various ethnic groups to each other ^[12]. Modern sociological research and research in the field of social philosophy and social psychology also prove its very productive value, but as an element of social cohesion, reducing social tension and preserving public health. ^{[1, 7],[12-13]}. In general, the role of social capital in social development and its positive effects have been studied in depth and systematically enough, taking into account its forms (bonding, bridging and linking) and the level of manifestation (micro, meso, macro) are reflected in the following works: ^{[12, 14]}. It is social capital in its triad (networks, norms of trust), based on the norms of mutual assistance and duty-responsibility as awareness of its usefulness to others, that acts as a guide to achieve the necessary goals.

An analysis of the problems of modern sociological research shows that social capital is a fairly popular category of analysis. Its methodological significance in relation to the analysis of the development of society lies in the fact that it allows for a more comprehensive assessment and view of the development of various social processes, to reveal the systemic patterns of development of society. Because there are attempts to scientifically substantiate the integration of the concept of social capital with the model of the minimum universe, as a universal matrix on the basis of which any system, including the public one, develops. As E.P. Porkhacheva notes, it is this model that largely meets the tasks of studying social dynamics, taking into account the main conflicts and resources at critical points in the development of society ^[15]. However, despite the meta-subjectivity and prevalence of this category, there is still no clear unified and integrative concept of social capital, a single methodology for its analysis. The multidimensional nature of the category of social capital also causes the complexity and ambiguity of its operationalization. In addition, social capital exists at three levels of analysis: macro, meso, and micro levels. In general, the systematization of approaches to its measurement and assessment methods are most fully presented in the works of A.N. Tatarko, T.A. Guzhavina et al. et al. ^[12],[14-16]. An overview of basic theories and an analysis of modern conceptual and empirical foundations of research, taking into account the level of analysis of social capital, is presented in detail in the works of E.P. Porkhacheva, A.O. Epanchintseva, A.N. Krasilova, A.M. Almakaeva and O.V. Volchenko, L.A. Belyaeva and others ^[16-21]. A detailed description of the most widely used methods of empirical analysis in world practice is presented in the work of A.A. Stebakov ^[22]. The methodology of constructing an empirical regional model of social cohesion, taking into account the specifics of Russia, is presented in the work of T.N. Yudina. This model is aimed at testing from 16 to 22 conceptual aspects of social cohesion and allows us to classify certain of them (values, a sense of pride in the region/country, confidence/insecurity in the future, participation in public life, attitude towards authorities and political parties, access to services, etc.) as negative or negative factors. of a positive orientation ^[23].

It should be especially noted that the most empirically studied aspect is trust, which is part of the structure in almost all concepts of social capital. The regional section of the analysis of social capital at the macro level is represented mainly by studies of institutional and interpersonal trust as its main elements, the role of NGOs in the formation of interethnic relations (D.A. Omelchenko et al.), interethnic trust ^[24]. A separate layer of extensive, in-depth research should be highlighted, primarily by A.N. Tatarko, S.V. Ryzhova, S.V. Chuvashov, analyzing the regional culture of trust, the ethnic factor and the impact of integration immigration policy on trust and social capital. In our opinion, the work of these researchers can be classified as basic, providing theoretical and methodological foundations for the study of social capital, taking into account the specifics of the conditions of Russia and the multinational nature of its regions. A generalizing conclusion from these studies is that ethnic diversity in the territory of the Russian Federation does not significantly affect the level of generalized trust and, in general, does not hinder the accumulation of social capital ^[12],[25-26]. Thus, S.V. Ryzhova, in the study of social capital, uses the analysis of its elements such as generalized, group (interethnic, intraethnic), interpersonal and institutional trust, ethnic attitudes. Empirically, based on the materials of regional and all-Russian research in 2014-2020, her work proved that generalized trust is an active element of regional social capital, is interconnected with national identity and is a factor of interethnic harmony. At the same time, with an increase in indicators of the level of generalized trust, indicators of interethnic tolerance and interaction, including towards migrants, increase ^{[25, 27]}. In addition, the analysis of civic identity was based on the substantial research of L.M. Drobizheva ^[28].

In general, an analysis of the available research allows us to conclude that the formation and volume of social capital in Russia largely depend not on the ethnic factor, but rather on historical, political and social contexts.

Next, we will outline the basic theories of social capital and their leading positions, which are of fundamental importance in relation to the study of social capital at the macro level. The analysis of social capital at the macro level is aimed at assessing the elements responsible for social cohesion in society, as well as identifying all possible effects and its impact on the development of regions. In contrast to the structural/network approach and the basic theories of social capital analysis at the micro level (P. Bourdieu), the basic modern theories of social capital at the macro level (R. Putnam, F. Fukuyama) primarily address the cognitive aspects of social capital. Much attention is paid to the analysis of trust as a condition for the successful development of regions (R. Putnam). However, the idea that the potential of mutual trust lies at the heart of the emergence of social capital was introduced by J. Coleman, considering the system of interpersonal relationships. It also includes norms and social exchange in the structure of social capital, the community of which creates conditions for people to work together for common purposes. At the same time, trust implies the expectation of honest behavior based on respect for the commonality of these norms (justice, religion, competence, honesty, openness, etc.) and generates the potential of society for consolidation, exchange and mutual assistance. At the same time, R. Putnam defines the strict orientation of the formation of social capital from the microlevel to the macrolevel – the state.

An important point for analyzing the development of social processes in society and regional communities is to focus on which forms of social capital are dominant. The division of social capital into forms was introduced specifically for the analysis of social capital at the macro level. Thus, according to R. Putnam, who identified the dividing (bonding/closed/social bonds) and uniting (bridging/open/social bridges) forms of social capital, it is the bridging form of social capital that allows building connections between representatives of various social groups (different in socio-economic, ethnic, religious, demographic status) It is of greater importance for the growth of solidarity, cooperation and entrepreneurship ^[14]. The identification of the linking form of social capital as part of the bridging form has determined the theoretical basis for the analysis of vertical individual and group interactions, for example, between public organizations and the government ^[14].

According to R. Patney, social capital at the macro level forms the level of citizenship and is measured by the following system of indicators: participation in the activities of communities and public organizations; involvement in socio-political processes, including turnout in elections; participation in volunteer activities; informal communication networks; trust ^{[14, 21]}. It should be noted that most modern studies of social capital at the macro level are based on this assessment system. However, the specifics of research tasks may slightly change this structure, excluding some elements, or vice versa, supplementing, for example, with elements of tolerance or equality.

F. To determine the influence of various social groups and organizations on society, Fukuyama uses indicators such as the radius of trust and the radius of distrust, which characterize the attitude of society towards these groups and, accordingly, the degree of cohesion of society or its disunity. As a rule, a high radius of distrust is associated with well-organized groups, but representing criminal, corrupt structures, terrorist or extremist organizations. At the same time, the dependence is derived: the higher this coefficient is for groups and the proportion of such groups in society, the lower the total indicator of the social capital of the society.

Regarding the "statist" concept of social capital, the works of many researchers express ambiguous positions. So, in particular, A.N. Krasilova notes that research in the traditions of this approach replaces social capital itself as an object of research, such as the quality of public policy and factors that weaken the level of social cohesion ^[21]. However, in our opinion, the idea that the state can contribute either to the development of social capital or to its destruction, and strong formal institutions are needed for the development of social capital, is productive in developing empirical indicators of its measurement. After all, it is precisely developed formal institutions and organizations that contribute to maintaining the level of trust in general, including political trust.

There are several theories (harassment, conflict, and contact) explaining the impact of ethnic diversity on social capital. It should be noted that in R. Putnam's theory, the ethnic factor is considered as negative in relation to social capital. At the same time, this particular position, formulated taking into account the empiricism of the regions of the United States, is considered ambiguous to a greater extent and is criticized using empirical evidence from other researchers. However, it was R. Putnam who proved the crucial importance of historical and cultural conditions in forming the level of trust. Therefore, the use of certain provisions of Western theory and methodology of empirical analysis in the study of social capital in Russia requires significant conceptual adjustments, taking into account the specifics of Russian realities. First of all, it concerns the influence of the ethnic factor on the cohesion and social capital of Russian society, as well as the methodology for measuring the level of generalized trust.

In this regard, the next block of the theoretical and methodological base of social capital research is associated with the need to identify the traditions and main provisions of Russian social capital research that have theoretical and methodological potential for its research in regional societies, taking into account the specifics of functioning in relation to the conditions of Russia. It should be noted that domestic researchers of social capital most often, or, one might even say, traditionally approach its analysis through the prism of a resource approach, the essence of which is described in detail in ^[14]. At the same time, social capital is most often considered in domestic research in the context of social inequality, achieving benefits and improving the quality of life ^[21]. Many Russian researchers define social capital precisely as a convertible resource – methodologically, the emphasis is on the depth and quality of social contacts in achieving benefits and benefits, it is believed that structural aspects are more important and more quantifiable ^[14-15],[19]. Many of the researchers rely on R. Putnam's concept in their assessments.

In general, an analysis of a number of works and conclusions from the empirical data presented in them has shown that Russian science has accumulated a certain set of fundamental provisions regarding the study of the social capital of regional societies and the specifics of its functioning in relation to the conditions of Russia. In the course of our analysis, we selected a range of those main provisions that formed the main basis of our research on social capital in the multiethnic regions of Russia. Among them are the following.

1. In the tradition of the resource approach, A.O. Epanchintsev presents a retrospective analysis of the social capital of Russian society. Using a network approach, he justifies the transition of social capital in Russia to the sphere of informal relations as a way to "... overcome the inefficiency of government organizations" ^[19]. Thus, analyzing the possibilities of measuring social capital and the specifics of its manifestation in Russia, along with the possibilities of social networks, he also focuses on highlighting such elements as: the level of trust in the main public institutions and the level of civic engagement – participation in public volunteer organizations. The main conclusion from this work, characterizing the state of social capital in Russia, is that "... trust is concentrated mainly in local groups and often does not go beyond the individual level" ^[19].

This is the specificity of Russia and its main task to overcome this circumstance. Indeed, the empirical data presented in his work show an infinitesimally small percentage of people who belong to any public organizations - only 5% of citizens are members of political parties, and from 80-91% are not members of any volunteer and public organizations at all, which also serve as the basis of civic democracy ^[19].

If we consider the data from available more recent studies at the regional level, we can also confirm this trend, when up to 87% of the surveyed respondents were still not included in the activities of any organizations and NGOs ^[29]. If we turn to the data of large-scale regular research conducted by VTSIOM, we will also see confirmation of this trend as an all-Russian one. Thus, the majority of respondents in Russia (75%) still did not participate in the activities of any public organization. Moreover, 52% of respondents answered that they were not ready for such participation under any circumstances. Recognition of the state and society, payment and other remuneration can attract only 21% to work in public organizations. At the same time, among the reasons for non-participation in the second place, after the lack of objective opportunities, is not lack of interest (6 reasons in the ranking), but rather lack of information about such organizations and ways to participate and join them ^[30]. Thus, even today this circumstance is already a characteristic traditional feature of Russian society, which is a sign of the underdevelopment of the institutional environment.

2. V.V. Zotov and E.A. Prelikova offer an interesting cross-section of the analysis and a comprehensive definition of social capital at the macro level. They interpret it as a public resource that is formed and accumulated under the influence of a social network, facilitates the achievement of common goals, and necessarily creates "... public wealth in the form of a high level of trust in government, law and order, social participation, partnership, and willingness to be active in solving socially important tasks" during its reproduction ^[31]. The basis of the structure of social capital in relation to this interpretation is social initiative, participation and trust at the institutional and interpersonal levels. The uniqueness of their research lies in the fact that, based on the need to overcome the negative impact of social networks on social development (segmentation, corruption, closed social networks, etc.) and applying the concept of capitalization to the analysis, these researchers pay special attention to the issue of "... sufficiency of the level of social health of individuals for organizing joint activities leading to to solve socially significant tasks" and define this "sufficiency" as the main condition under which the formation of positive social capital is possible ^[31]. Thus, the process of capitalizing the social capital of a society is secondary to the process of capitalizing the social health of individuals in a particular society. This provision, perhaps, can be defined as one of the main provisions of modern Russian concepts of social capital.

3. An analysis of empirical data accumulated in Russian studies shows that Russia as a whole is traditionally characterized by a high level of trust in top government officials – the President of the country and Heads of regions ^{[19, 29]}.

4. Since the Russian Federation is a multinational state, it is quite natural and advisable for researchers to address such an aspect as the impact of cultural and ethnic diversity on social capital. However, in Russian science there are a small number of extensive works directly devoted to this aspect, which can act as a methodological basis for research. In addition, the attitude towards this factor among Russian researchers is also twofold. A number of researchers, in particular ^[29], believe that such an element as ethnic tolerance cannot be unambiguously considered as an element of social capital due to its antagonistic nature. However, in his work, A.N. Tatarko, setting the direct task of investigating the relationship between ethnic diversity and social capital, using the example of a large-scale study in 25 regions of the Russian Federation, proves that in Russia this factor does not have a negative impact, does not reduce or destroy social capital, but, on the contrary, is positively associated with the growth of the social network and the number of friends, i.e. informal communication. In addition, it has been proven that in the Russian context, social capital is not only a resource for the adaptation of migrants, but also contributes to the mutual adaptation of diverse ethnic groups in multiethnic regions to each other ^[12].

5. E.P. Porkhacheva, who develops the problems of social capital in her work, identifies three components of the minimum universe within the framework of the previously mentioned model.:

1. The volume of social connections/networks – as a resource for social action;

2. A resource of trust – as a result of the adoption of social norms and the development of social institutions;

3. Social norms and value orientations that develop through participation in voluntary, public organizations ^[15]. This study can be called an attempt to develop an integrative concept of social capital.

The structural elements outlined above can also be called universal because almost everyone, both foreign and domestic researchers, designates a similar threefold causal structure of social capital.: networks, norms, and trust. However, while shifting the emphasis towards certain elements, depending on the approach to understanding social capital that is followed – structural or cognitive.

Research methodology.

Considering the approaches to measuring and variants of the structure of social capital presented in various analyzed works, it can be concluded that its content and structure may still vary depending on the level of analysis, approach and research objectives. Trust and social networks are considered the main indicators in the operationalization of social capital. Also, such elements and characteristics as tolerance, membership in formal and informal groups and their size are most often measured in the structure of social capital – in terms of the level of civic participation in public life, the level of observance of moral norms and values, the level of readiness for gratuitous assistance, information and communication, etc. At the same time, the possibility of defining one or two of them is considered legitimate if it is justified and depends on the stated task.

The nature of the empirical indicators of our study was largely determined by the need to take into account the following circumstances:

1. Analysis of social capital at the macro level;

2. The polyethnicity of regional societies.

The operationalization of social capital and the identification of the structural conditions of its existence at the level of multiethnic regional societies as important and integral factors puts forward not only the presence of trust and a developed social network of communication, but also the formation of identity as a powerful unifying principle, the presence of conditions for tolerant relations between peoples, as well as the level of social responsibility and the development of norms of mutual assistance, readiness for the manifestation of civic engagement and participation. Therefore, taking into account the circumstances presented above and the analysis of the structuring and evaluation of social capital in foreign and domestic science, we have included the following elements in the structure of measuring social capital that are relevant for analyzing the accumulation and functioning of social capital in the conditions of multiethnic regions of Russia:

1. Trust;

2. Identity;

3. Tolerance;

4. Civic engagement and activism.

In our opinion, it is this structure of elements that most accurately defines social capital, which at the macro level represents the ability and desire of people to unite and interact in order to achieve a common goal. Also, this structure is most consistent with the objectives of studying social capital as a factor of social cohesion and consolidation, taking into account such an objective condition of Russia as the multinational nature of its regions. This approach corresponds to the methodology presented by A.N. Tatarko. However, unlike A.N. Tatarko's methodology, which implies a 4-element structure of social capital, we have not included such an element as cohesion in a separate structural unit. Following T.A. Guzhavina's reasoning about the elements of the structure, we believe that these aspects are significantly interdependent, since trust implies the possibility of cohesion, solidarity and interaction, and cohesion, in turn, means having the necessary level of trust. Therefore, if the level of trust is low, then so is social cohesion in society, and vice versa. Further, the empirical assessment includes the following factors and resources: the level of generalized, interpersonal and institutional trust, the level of tolerance between peoples in multinational regions, the level of tolerance towards migrants, civic and national identity, and the level of civic participation. The operationalization of the social capital of multiethnic regions is presented in Table 1.

Table 1 – Structure and system of subjective indicators of social capital in the context of multiethnic regions of Russia

The assessment of social capital, taking into account the polyethnicity of Russian regions, was carried out by the method of sociological research, according to the structure and system of subjective indicators indicated in Table 1. The study was carried out by means of a questionnaire in the Republic of Bashkortostan by the socio-political research sector of the Institute of Socio-Economic Research of the UFIC RAS in May-June 2024. The total volume of the probabilistic sample was 1,100 people. The distribution of respondents by gender corresponded to the proportion of men and women in the total population of Bashkortostan and, accordingly, included 52.2% of female and 47.8% of male respondents. The survey covered 51.9% of respondents living in the cities of the republic and 48.1% in villages and villages of the republic.

Results and discussion.

As an example of the practical implementation of this methodology, we present a fragment of an assessment of one of the elements of social capital – the level of generalized trust.

Generalized trust is one of the most general and basic indicators of the social capital of regions, characterizing the willingness to interact even with those who are not familiar with it. It is based on expectations of honest behavior. It was this indicator that R. Putnam used in his theory. This indicator determines the level of trust regardless of group affiliation. It is believed that a high level of generalized trust also indicates a sufficiently high level of provision for basic needs and signals the spread of the value of self-actualization and self-expression. Traditionally, this indicator is measured based on identifying the proportion of people who believe that the majority can be trusted, and the proportion of those who believe that the majority should be careful. It is using this methodology that the level of generalized trust in various countries is assessed in the World Values Survey (WVS). This study correlates with a cognitive approach to the analysis of social capital. According to the latest data from this study (wave 7, 2017-2020), i.e. in the pre-pandemic period and before the start of the CBO, the Russian Federation significantly lost out in this indicator to many Western countries. Traditionally, it was considered a country with a low level of accumulation of social resources. Indeed, if we look at the data from WVS Wave-7, we will see a very low percentage of those Russians who believe that most people can be trusted – 22.9% in general. 74.4% at the same time believe that the majority should be treated with caution. It must be said that this percentage distribution was stable and almost the same in all gender and age groups of the population. Thus, 71.4% in the under–29 age group, 75.6% in the 30-49 age group, and 75.2% in the over-50 group indicate caution in dealing with people. A retrospective look at this indicator suggests that over the years, the dynamics of this indicator has formed a generally downward trend, with some periods of slight recovery (from 1995 to 2006) – up to 29.2%. The last highest value of this indicator (according to the WVS methodology) was observed in Russia in 1990, when the level of general confidence was 37.5%. A further, and sharp, downward jump in this indicator (to 23% in 1995) was obviously associated with a difficult transition period in the history of Russia ^[32].

Despite the fact that this indicator is used quite often in both global and regional assessments, it is considered an ambiguous, methodologically imperfect and complex indicator due to the presence of several concepts of its definition. The most frequently used interpretation of the issue of generalized trust, in particular, in WVS, has been questioned both in the global research community and in domestic research. There are even scientific papers devoted entirely to a detailed study of only this aspect – generalized or generalized social trust. Such, in particular, are the works of A.M. Almakayeva, D.A. Omelchenko, S.V. Ryzhova. ^{[25, 27],[33-34]}. Their study showed that domestic researchers have made attempts to improve the methodology for measuring general trust, which were a reaction to the need to correct the WVS methodology, taking into account the specifics of social and transformational processes in Russia. It should be noted that after adapting the scale of measuring general trust to the peculiarities of its cognitive perception by Russians, the values of this indicator turned out to be significantly higher and, as noted by a number of researchers, closer to reality. Thus, the materials of the all-Russian 2020 study show the predominance of distrust trends (47% do not trust in general), but at the same time, the indicator of generalized trust among Russians, taking into account the transformation of the question scale, already reaches 39% (as the sum of the answers accurately and rather trusting) ^[26]. However, it is still significantly lower than in a number of other countries.

One of the concepts of defining generalized trust is based on group identity and people's perceptions of outgroups. Taking into account the modern conditions of Russia (cultural and ideological context and its own), the use of this concept, which works according to the principle: we are all members of one large group, community or country, or we are not them, when determining the level of generalized trust in the regions of Russia, seems to us the most appropriate. It is natural that the level of trust in society determines the presence of cohesion and vice versa. Therefore, in relation to the modern conditions of Russia, as a projection on the level of generalized trust, we used a question that suggests assessing the level of disunity/distrust and cohesion/trust in global, Russian and regional spaces. The results of the 2024 study in the Republic of Bashkortostan are shown in Fig. 1. It should be noted that the data we obtained for the region are generally comparable with the data of All-Russian studies based on the 4-point confidence scale methodology ^[27].

Figure 1 - Distribution of answers to the question – Do you think there is more agreement and cohesion among people today, or disunity and distrust: in the world, Russia, and the region (2024 survey data on the example of the Republic of Bashkortostan, %)

A regional cross-section of the analysis shows that, in general, more than 40% of respondents rate both the regional community and the Russian one as cohesive, forming diametrically opposed assessments of the global community. The data obtained demonstrate the excess of the share of positive assessments over negative ones in Russia and the regions and a fairly high percentage of discrepancies in assessments of distrust and disunity regarding the global and Russian space. An analysis of this issue in a comparable formulation in retrospect (based on the FOM database) shows the opposite situation, when only 15% of respondents in 2008 believed that there was more trust and cohesion among Russians, while 71% held the opposite point of view ^[35]. Similar trends in the periods 2011-2014 can be seen in the analysis of regional cross-sections of this indicator ^[29]. According to the FOM and All-Russian population surveys conducted by the HSE Center for Civil Society and Non-Profit Sector Research, since 2014 there has been a positive trend among the population in assessing the presence of harmony and cohesion in Russian society (up to 48%). However, since 2017, the dynamics of the indicator has again changed to a downward trend. So, in 2020, only 31% of respondents believed that Russian society was based on a relationship of harmony and cohesion, while 65% of Russians believed that there was more disagreement and disunity in Russian society. At the moment, regional measurement data show another reversal of the trend, and today a significantly smaller number of respondents in surveys assess Russian society as fragmented (30.2% of respondents in Bashkortostan in 2024, Fig. 1).

Conclusions and recommendations.

Thus, it can be assumed that the pressure of external threats really contributes to the social unity and cohesion of regional communities as components of Russian society, as evidenced by the movement of indicators of social capital towards a positive orientation.

Also, a study conducted using the methodology described above in a number of multiethnic regions of Russia (the Republic of Dagestan, the Republic of Tatarstan and the Republic of Adygea, the Republic of Bashkortostan) has confirmed, in the current context of development, the theses available in Russian sociology that:

– In Russia, historical, political and social contexts are more crucial for the accumulation of social capital at the macro level than the factor of ethnic diversity;

– Among the mechanisms for ensuring cohesion and consolidation, the mechanisms that recognize cultural and ethnic diversity and ensure tolerant relations between different ethnic groups and their equal rights remain the most effective in modern Russia.

Also, the data obtained during the conducted research in the above-mentioned regions confirmed the trend of a high level of tolerance towards representatives of other cultures and nationalities in all the surveyed multiethnic regions. It has been confirmed that the main component of social capital accumulation in Russia remains civic identity. The obtained indicative characteristics of interpersonal and group trust testified to the establishment of a predominantly bridging form of social capital in the territory of the surveyed multiethnic regions. Regional differences in the levels of trust formed in various authorities and institutions, but, above all, in law enforcement agencies, have also been identified.

The study revealed low rates of civic participation and activism in Bashkortostan as a structural element of social capital. However, this is not a specific feature of the region, but rather a characteristic feature of the entire Russian space. The lack of awareness and awareness of the population about possible forms and methods of civic participation is one of the reasons for this. Therefore, the following mechanisms can be proposed as recommendations aimed at stimulating the involvement of the population in civic initiatives and raising awareness of citizens about possible forms and methods of civic participation in local government.:

- monitoring aimed at identifying the quality of the system for informing citizens about the activities of public organizations and the actions of municipal authorities;

- assessment of citizens' awareness of possible and existing forms of citizen participation in local government;

- direct interaction of authorities and local governments with citizens based on the convening of a joint conference of socially active citizens and representatives of local governments to develop a program of action to solve problems relevant to the municipality and the population.;

- activation of publications in print and electronic media on statistics and subjects of citizens' appeals to local governments.

The proposed mechanisms contribute to increasing the level of loyalty and trust in local governments, and consequently to strengthening the macro-level social capital of the region.