Conceptual and theoretical approaches

The most well known and widely used typological framework for comparative welfare policy studies both globally and in respect of the EU15 and EU8 countries is the welfare regime approach, developed and elaborated by Esping-Andersen (Reference Esping-Andersen1990, Reference Esping-Andersen and Esping-Andersen1996). There is now a voluminous literature on this approach, including numerous critical discussions (see e.g. Arts and Gelissen, Reference Arts and Gelissen2002; Aspalter, Reference Aspalter2006, Reference Aspalter2019; Bonoli, Reference Bonoli1997; Wood and Gough, Reference Wood and Gough2006). Criticisms include the confusion of ideal and real typification, the lack of incorporation of factors relating to the likes of gender, family and labour, and a perceived bias towards Northern European states. Some, such as Ferrera (Reference Ferrera1996) and Hantrais (Reference Hantrais2004), have developed different typologies; Hantrais identified four family policy clusters, as defined in her study of twenty-five EU countries, indicating different ways of balancing the welfare mix between social service provision and family responsibility. Studies such as that by Nygren et al. (Reference Nygren, White and Ellingsen2018) have attempted to deploy this approach by placing the family at the centre of analysis as a reaction to Esping-Andersen’s typology.

We would direct the interested reader to these discussions of typologies, which are readily found within the literature. Here we would simply highlight the major difficulty of lack of fit of such typologies to date in respect of the complex constellations that characterise post-communist countries in terms of welfare developments over time, legacies of historical and ideological patterns of development (see e.g. Inglot, Reference Inglot2008). In the Themed Issue, contributors analysed how historical legacies have interacted with new risks to produce convergences and divergences in contemporary welfare policies (Cook et al., Reference Cook, Iarskaia-Smirnova and Kozlov2023: Prisyazhniuk and Sokhey, Reference Prisyazhniuk and Sokhey2023; Dugarova, Reference Dugarova2023).

A lively debate has been taking place over ‘pathways’ for welfare state development within countries in the wider region. Some analysts have drawn inspiration from historical institutionalism, a comparative approach to studying organisations, typically using case studies (Inglot, Reference Inglot2008). Concepts such as ‘path dependence’ have influenced debates in political science – for example, as elaborated by Pierson and Skocpol (Reference Pierson and Skocpol2002). Typically the question is whether the pursuit of public policies is ‘path dependent’ or ‘path departing’, i.e. conforming to or deviating from directions expected from historical developments or institutional factors. This debate has been influential in welfare state studies, including with respect to the post-communist region. Examples include edited collections by Schimmelfennig and Sedelmeier (Reference Schimmelfennig and Sedelmeier2005) and Cerami and Vanhuysse (Reference Cerami, Vanhuysse, Cerami and Vanhuysse2009). Some richly detailed studies of welfare development in historical context exist for the Visegard countries of the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland (Inglot, Reference Inglot2008). Some writers have aligned with institutional approaches, while others have looked to historical legacies (Cerami and Vanhuysse, Reference Cerami, Vanhuysse, Cerami and Vanhuysse2009; Haggard and Kaufman, Reference Haggard, Kaufman, Cerami and Vanhuysse2009). A difficulty of the dominance of this approach has been the exploring of other explanatory approaches and production of accounts at times heavy on theory and light on empirical foundation (e.g. Cerami and Vanhuysse, Reference Cerami, Vanhuysse, Cerami and Vanhuysse2009).

This debate has helped to shift the discourse away from the confines of the dominant Western perspective mentioned by Midgley (Reference Midgley and Kennett2004). Following Midgley (Reference Midgley and Kennett2004) and Polese et al. (Reference Polese, Morris, Kovacs and Harboe2014), we suggest that the dominance of this discourse has limited the development of comparative study of welfare and inclusion in the post-communist region and overlooked the distinctiveness of countries and forms of informal welfare. However, the discussion has tended to drift into abstruse and abstract argumentation at the expense of clarity and connection with concrete contexts. Simply put, history and politics come into play when it comes to explaining the pathways pursued or deviated from during welfare state evolution (Cerami and Vanhuysse, Reference Cerami, Vanhuysse, Cerami and Vanhuysse2009; Haggard and Kaufman, Reference Haggard, Kaufman, Cerami and Vanhuysse2009). The post-communist region has produced relatively unique constellations of institutional arrangements and historical legacies of development (Inglot, Reference Inglot2008; Inglot et al., Reference Inglot, Szikra and Rat2012). Cook (Reference Cook2013) has contributed to the debate by extending the ‘politics matters’ framework to post-communist countries such as Russia, Poland, Hungary, Belarus and Kazakhstan. She argued that this framework requires modifying, as it ‘misses processes of corruption and informalisation that have been important in the post-communist context’ (Cook, Reference Cook2013: 30).

Explanatory strategies need to account for this more effectively than has been the case to date. Thus a more nuanced approach is called for in explaining commonalities and diversities within post-communist countries (Kuitto et al., Reference Kuitto, Jahn and Düpont2012; Orenstein and Haas, Reference Orenstein, Haas, Glatzer and Rueschemeyer2002; Piotrowska and Rae, Reference Piotrowska and Rae2018; Sengoku, Reference Sengoku, Tabata and Iwashita2004; Vandenbroucke, Reference Vandenbroucke2017), including studies of inclusive strategies (Stepaniuk, Reference Stepaniuk2019). We contend there has been a lack of fit between conceptual frameworks and empirical realities, presenting another hurdle for comparative study in this field. A shortage exists of the development of middle-range constructs to help improve this fit; these could include mediating processes and mechanisms of the sort implicated in the informal management of welfare, such as coping strategies (see Titterton, Reference Titterton2006 in respect of social policy in Russia) and how they link with the emergence of new forms of stratification in socio-economic terms, such as the rise of the ‘new poor’ and effects of the informal sector in conjunction with political changes in Russia (see e.g. Davidova, Reference Davidova, Manning and Tikhonova2009; Rose et al., Reference Rose, Mishler and Munro2006; Timofeyev, Reference Timofeyev2012; Zelenev, Reference Zelenev2005).

In their article for the Themed Issue, Cook and Titterton (Reference Cook and Titterton2023b) discuss the concept of welfare polity, which embraces the normative framework, policy capability, institutional capacity, and social and political movements that shape and constrain welfare state change. The notion is based on the work of scholars based in other disciplines, including Gill (Reference Gill2015), Joerges et al. (Reference Joerges, Stråth and Wagner2005), Kaiser and Meyer (Reference Kaiser and Meyer2013) and Schulz-Forberg and Stråth (Reference Schulz-Forberg and Stråth2012); the welfare polity concept encapsulates this in order to reconsider the interaction of state and market, associated political philosophies, as well as opportunities for political and institutional renewal.

For Cook and Titterton (Reference Cook and Titterton2023b), this concept has greater explanatory potential than the more commonly used term welfare regime, often deployed in the comparative literature (see e.g. van Kersbergen and Vis, Reference van Kersbergen and Vis2014). They point to its advantages, which they deploy to structure comparisons. The concept of ‘welfare regime’ has tended to be used to designate a fairly stable formation or static type that follows a single distributive logic (i.e. such as social democratic or liberal). The welfare polity approach, by contrast, allows for considerably greater scope and flexibility when comparatively analysing political economies that defy easy categorisation across a region as varied as Europe, Asia and other regions.

Welfare polity represents a much more fluid concept that better characterises and captures welfare state change in the currently turbulent politics of the region. This politics often produces fragmented and reactive welfare policies that follow no dominant distributive logic. The modernisation and reform agendas within these welfare polities are significant and worthy of attention for social policy analysts. Some of the commonalities and specificities to be found in states that have highly divergent political economies can accordingly be more effectively highlighted. The concept, we contend, offers scholars and analysts intriguing potential for making structured comparisons when considering welfare developments in different countries. It allows for a more nuanced consideration of a rich and diverse mix of factors and determinants influencing welfare policy choices. Different welfare polities can be identified within a comparative framework, of which four may be of particular interest: ‘Authoritarian’, ‘Populist’, ‘Social Democratic’ and ‘Liberal’. In addition, three of the key tensions involved in understanding welfare dimensions in these polities, we further suggest, are: solidarity/marginality, formality/informality and inclusivity/exclusivity. Each of these dimensions offer windows revealing the ways in which welfare has been restructured within such polities. This is an indication of the potential of the welfare polity concept for stimulating alternative and innovative analyses in a comparative manner.

The welfare polity in the wider post-communist region and in countries like Russia is of mixed composition, shifting over time, consisting of elements that coalesce and regroup according to the strength of particular components, like elite formation, economic performance and dynamics of social movements. This can be seen, for example, in relation to developments in social protection and safety nets and policy shifts such as deinstitutionalisation for groups such as children and older people (Kulmala et al., Reference Kulmala, Shpakovskaya and Chernova2021; Kulmala et al., Reference Kulmala, Tarasenko, Jäppinen and Pivovarova2023). In their descriptive account of post-soviet welfare reforms, Cook and Iarskaia-Smirnova (Reference Cook and Iarskaia-Smirnova2023) claim significant progress has been made, while acknowledging the continuation of forms of social exclusion.

Characterising the Russian Welfare State has been both an analytical and terminological challenge. Broadly speaking, there are two distinctive camps: those who, such as Logvinenko (Reference Logvinenko2020), consider the Russian Welfare State to be authoritarian and those writers who, such as Matveev and Novkunskaya (Reference Matveev and Novkunskaya2020), argue that it is now neoliberal in essence. Many writers occupy a point along this continuum, leaning towards the study of authoritarian regimes’ effects upon the welfare sector (e.g. Cook et al., Reference Cook, Aasland and Prisyazhnyuk2019) or towards logging increasing incursions of neoliberal marketisation of welfare services (e.g. Rasell Reference Rasell2009; Rutland, Reference Rutland2013). The emergence of a trend such as outsourcing provision to socially-oriented non-governmental organisations (SONPOs) has attracted attention (Cook et al., Reference Cook, Iarskaia-Smirnova and Tarasenko2021), as has the development of public/private mixes in healthcare. Such mutable forms of state and market interaction represent a notable feature of the welfare polity. In terms of the discussion set out above, in Russia the authoritarian welfare polity appears currently dominant. Thus we might expect to see an emphasis on exclusions, tightening of eligibility criteria and narrowing of definitions of ‘deserving’ groups, in ways that help to exclude groups such as care leavers, migrants, people with disabilities and older people in poverty. The paradoxical combination of tightening restrictions on and creating incentives for civil society actors (Bogdanova et al., Reference Bogdanova, Cook and Kulmala2018) is also an anticipated feature.

We therefore wish to issue an invitation to scholars to explore the potential of the welfare polity concept, along with its strengths and limitations, for enhancing the knowledge basis of comparative studies in this and other regions of welfare policy and practice. We now turn to consider the present state of comparative studies of the latter in respect of Russia, EU8 and EU15 countries.

Comparative studies involving EU8, EU15 and Russian welfare polities

Comparative studies of Russian and European welfare polities both face problems familiar to students of comparative studies and some challenges that are specific to the region we are considering. International comparative research in the field of welfare policy is now well established as a distinctive body of studies. As Cochrane (Reference Cochrane, Cochrane and Clarke1993) noted, it can ‘deliver useful insights by highlighting arrangements which are frequently taken for granted’ while developing a ‘fuller understanding of welfare systems in a range of countries’ (1993: 1). Overviews of comparative research are to be readily found in an expanding literature (Baldwin, Reference Baldwin and Greve1996; Clasen, Reference Clasen1998; Cousins, Reference Cousins2005; Ginsburg, Reference Ginsburg1992; Hantrais, Reference Hantrais2009; Hantrais and Mangen, Reference Hantrais and Mangen1996; Higgins, Reference Higgins1981; Hill, Reference Hill1996; Kennett, Reference Kennett2014; Leibfried, Reference Leibfried1992; Mabbett and Bolderson, Reference Mabbett, Bolderson and Clasen1999; Mills et al., Reference Mills, Van de Bunt and De Bruijn2006; Nygren et al., Reference Nygren, White and Ellingsen2018; Oyen, Reference Oyen1990).

However, Midgley claimed that while comparative social policy inquiry in Europe and North America has produced a ‘substantial and significant corpus of knowledge’, the field ‘still faces substantial challenges’ (2004: 220). Nearly two decades on, these challenges not only remain but have stiffened considerably with the deepening of geopolitical contestation.

The field of comparative research in welfare studies has witnessed a lively debate, particularly since the publication in 1990 of Esping-Andersen’s seminal analysis of welfare regimes and subsequent refinements (1990, 1996), already mentioned above. There have been numerous critical exchanges on the suitability of his categories and methodology, which the interested reader can find in the likes of Broka and Toots (Reference Broka and Toots2021), Fenger (Reference Fenger2007) and Kasza (Reference Kasza2002). Questions have been raised concerning the geographical and institutional focus and suitability to welfare states outside of Northern Europe, as well as accounting for aspects such as gender disparities and the nature of work (Ferrera, Reference Ferrera1996; Pascall and Kwak, Reference Pascall and Kwak2005). Comparative studies in social policy in the post-communist region are arguably less developed than studies of their Western counterparts. Our findings indicate that they have been fewer in quantity and variable in terms of their approach but such studies are gradually increasing over time (Auth, Reference Auth, Klenner and Leiber2010; Deacon, Reference Deacon and Jones1993, Reference Deacon2000; Keune, Reference Keune, Klenner and Leiber2010; Kuitto, Reference Kuitto2016; Sengoku, Reference Sengoku, Tabata and Iwashita2004). Moreover, within comparative studies of Russian and European welfare polities we found overall a growing and shared concern with divisions and exclusions generated by international economic trends and by national level reforms of policies and programmes.

International comparative studies involving the post-communist region may be divided into a range of subcategories, which typically share a conceptual and empirical concern with wellbeing and welfare arrangements in a cross-national perspective. We classify the studies conducted in relation to this region into six broad categories. These occasionally overlap and are restricted to cross-national research; studies contained in the grey literature, typically commissioned by international bodies, think tanks and Civil Society Organisations are largely excluded. We acknowledge that these categories are approximate and not mutually exclusive and do not claim to provide a comprehensive survey. Finally, Russian comparative studies are considered in the next section.

The first category is the study of welfare regimes, which typically employs a political economy-type approach (Wood and Gough, Reference Wood and Gough2006), based on statistical data. Examples include Aidukaite (Reference Aidukaite, Cerami and Vanhuysse2009); Cook (Reference Cook2007); Fenger (Reference Fenger2007); Haggard and Kaufman (Reference Haggard, Kaufman, Cerami and Vanhuysse2009); and Kuitto (Reference Kuitto2016). Here the research framing is usually inspired from wide ranging cross-national typologies, such as Esping-Andersen’s typology and its revisions (1990). There have been efforts to refine such typologies to include the Central and Eastern Europe region (Adascalitei, Reference Adascalitei2012; Cerami, Reference Cerami2009; Fenger, Reference Fenger2007; Lauzadyte-Tutliene et al., Reference Lauzadyte-Tutliene, Balezentis and Goculenko2018; Orosz, Reference Orosz2019), as well as account for gender-based perspectives (Pascall and Manning, Reference Pascall and Manning2000). Kovacs et al. (Reference Kovacs, Polese, Morris and Kennett2017: 213) have advised that ‘post-socialist welfare states within the European Union should not be categorised as a more or less coherent regime type’.

Second, there are studies of social transfers and programmes, including welfare, as well as social protection and safety net measures, typically deploying official data. We include here studies of specific vulnerable groups. Examples include: Emigh et al. (Reference Emigh, Feliciano, O’Malley and Cook-Martin2018); Fylling et al. (Reference Fylling, Baciu, Paulsen Breimo, Fylling, Baciu and Paulsen Breimo2019); Maszczyk (Reference Maszczyk2020); Noelke (Reference Noelke, Kogan, Gebel and Noelke2008); Orenstein (Reference Orenstein, Cerami and Vanhuysse2009); Rat (Reference Rat, Cerami and Vanhuysse2009); Standing (Reference Standing and Esping-Andersen1996); and Szeman et al. (Reference Szeman, Golubeva and Patyán2021). A third category covers studies of public opinion, attitudes and values in relation to the welfare state and support, using survey data (Cook, Reference Cook2013; Popic and Schneider, Reference Popic and Schneider2018; Roosma et al., Reference Roosma, Gelissen and van Oorschot2012).

Fourth, there are studies, usually using mixed methods, of social and political movements and organisations, at both international and local levels, influencing social policy and the supply of welfare programmes (e.g. Deacon and Hulse, Reference Deacon and Hulse2007; Lugosi, Reference Lugosi2018; Schaft and Ferkovics, Reference Schaft and Ferkovics2017; Vanhuysse, Reference Vanhuysse2006). The fifth category comprises studies, again mostly qualitative, that adopt an explicit dimension of a social and demographic nature. For example, research approaches can be found with an explicit focus on the family or variables like gender, ethnicity, age and health state; illustrations include An and Kulmala (Reference An and Kulmala2021); Auth (Reference Auth, Klenner and Leiber2010); Jehoel-Gijsbers and Vrooman (Reference Jehoel-Gijsbers and Vrooman2008); Kuuse et al. (Reference Kuuse, Kondor, Titterton and Bugarzski2021); Szelewa (Reference Szelewa, Fabian, Johnson and Lazda2021); Szeman et al. (Reference Szeman, Golubeva and Patyán2021); Theobald and Kern (Reference Theobald, Kern, Cerami and Vanhuysse2009); and Titterton and Smart (Reference Titterton and Smart2015).

Finally, there are some comparative surveys, typically quantitive, of welfare state trends associated with residualism, retrenchment, recalibration and responses to perceived threats such as new social risks (Aidukaite et al., Reference Aidukaite, Saxonberg, Szelewa and Szikra2021; Cook, Reference Cook2007; Cook and Titterton, Reference Cook and Titterton2023b; Hrast and Dobrotic, Reference Hrast, Dobrotic and Greve2022). Occasionally these are linked to selected political features such as authoritarianism or populism (Fenger, Reference Fenger2018) and are usually wide ranging in their scope. Further comparative studies relating to what we have referred to above as ‘authoritarian welfare polities’ would be a particularly helpful addition to the literature trends indicated above.

Current state of comparative studies in Russia

Comparative welfare research in Russia offers something of a contrast. While it is apparent that this forms much more of a mixed bag, it is unified by a concern predominantly with forms of exclusion created by economic and political reforms associated with ‘modernisation’ in the transition from the state-controlled economy of the United Socialist States of Russia towards a market-led economy. This includes subsequent policy shifts and impacts on various population subgroups, sometimes perceived as interlinking with broader international trends, such as neoliberal influenced reforms of welfare including privatisation or attempts to move away from predominantly statist forms of provision, reflected in outsourcing and public/private mixing.

One major conceptual lens has been human capital as a factor of socio-economic development in social well-being, income inequality, poverty, economic instability and reforms. These studies are often based on quantitative analysis. The evidence base includes survey data e.g. Russian Longitudinal Monitoring Survey data and official statistics. In addition, legislation reforms are systematically scrutinised (Ovcharova and Biryukova, Reference Ovcharova and Biryukova2017; Tikhonova, Reference Tikhonova2019; Tarasenko, Reference Tarasenko2021). Various forms of social inequality among social groups have been studied using comparative statistics e.g. for older people (Varlamova and Sinyavskaya, Reference Varlamova and Sinyavskaya2021). Regional disparities in economic prosperity, longevity and quality of life have also been examined (Zubarevich, Reference Zubarevich2019; Gorina, Reference Gorina2019). Some have pointed to the necessity of a mix of schemes based on means-tested and universal approaches (Ovcharova and Gorina, Reference Ovcharova and Gorina2017; Maleva and Avraamova, Reference Maleva and Avraamova2017; Mau et al., Reference Mau2020). Others emphasise the necessity of combining these approaches and argue that it would be ineffective and unfair to apply the same approaches to those who need increased benefits and access to common services and those who would prefer purchasing high-quality social services (Kuzminov et al., Reference Kuzminov, Ovcharova and Yakobson2015). Sinyavskaya (Reference Sinyavskaya2020) addressed the relevance of universal welfare state arrangements that proved their effectiveness under the current crisis; she argued that the basis of a new social policy should be programmes of universal assistance to those in need, similar to a guaranteed minimum income and various solutions within social investment. Researchers have advocated policies of active ageing, employment in old age (Bogdanova, Reference Bogdanova2016; Bogdanova and Grigoryeva, Reference Bogdanova and Grigoryeva2020), combating poverty via a social contract, socialisation of migrants and prioritising skilled labour migrants (Kuzminov et al., Reference Kuzminov, Ovcharova and Yakobson2015).

Exclusion and marginalisation issues are studied often through the systematic use of statistics and quantitative surveys. This includes studies of discrepancies in male and female employment (Sinyavskaya and Cherviakova, Reference Sinyavskaya, Cherviakova, Gatskova, Karabchuk, Kazuhiro and Skoglund2021; Varshavskaya, Reference Varshavskaya2015) and falls in the wages of workers (Tikhonova, Reference Tikhonova2015). In contrast, the topic of exclusion of sexual minorities (Soboleva and Bakhmet’ev, Reference Soboleva and Bakhmet’ev2014), people living with HIV/AIDS (Nartova et al., Reference Nartova, Krupets and Shilova2020), drug addicts (King et al., Reference King, Evdokimova and Godunova2019; Meylakhs et al., Reference Meylakhs, Aasland and Grønningsæter2017), migrants (Kashnitsky, Reference Kashnitsky2020), adults with disabilities and families of children with disabilities (Kurlenkova, Reference Kurlenkova2017), older people Grigoryeva and Sidorenko, Reference Grigoryeva and Sidorenko2019), children left without parental care (An and Kulmala, Reference An and Kulmala2021; Bogdanova, Reference Bogdanova2017; Kulmala et al., Reference Kulmala, Shpakovskaya and Chernova2021; Kulmala et al., Reference Kulmala, Tarasenko, Jäppinen and Pivovarova2023) are typically studied using qualitative methods. The everyday life of care workers and social service organisations has been considered in ethnographical perspective (Romanov and Kononenko, Reference Romanov and Kononenko2014). Intensive long-term care for older relatives with dementia has been the subject of study (Zdravomyslova and Savchenko, Reference Zdravomyslova and Savchenko2020). Results reveal that family care remains a cultural norm in the Russian context. Care practices are being modernised while the burden on caregivers is increasing but this does not receive sufficient institutional support. Dmitrieva (Reference Dmitrieva2018) demonstrated that carers attending IT training courses has little effect on the level of employment or the desire to continue working. In analysing maternity care services in the context of welfare restructuring in Russia, Matveev and Novkunskaya (Reference Matveev and Novkunskaya2020) argued that neoliberalism lies deeply embedded in policy, while Gurova (Reference Gurova2018) deployed the example of the transition from soviet to neoliberal governance of educational institutions.

Social policy reforms have been uneven and, despite some progress, have produced mixed outcomes, giving rise to new inequalities (Temkina and Zdravomyslova, Reference Temkina, Zdravomyslova, Attwood, Schimpfössl and Yusupova2018; Iarskaia-Smirnova and Romanov, Reference Iarskaia-Smirnova, Romanov and Salmenniemi2012) and discriminatory practices (Kozina and Zangieva, Reference Kozina and Zangieva2018). Attempts to develop an inclusive culture in educational and social services represent a new perspective in the Russian context (Antonova, Reference Antonova2014; Iarskaia-Smirnova and Goriainova, Reference Iarskaia-Smirnova and Goriainova2022). Issues of social inequality, exclusion and inclusion have been discussed in relation to disability policies (Rasell and Iarskaia-Smirnova, Reference Rasell and Iarskaia-Smirnova2014), along with public attitudes (Salmina, Reference Salmina2014), employment inclusion (Frolich et al., Reference Frolich, Antonva and Sinelnikova2023), construction of social problems and representations of social policy, inequality and social work in mass media (Iarskaia-Smirnova et al., Reference Iarskaia-Smirnova, Prisyazhniuk and Kononenko2016; Iarskaia-Smirnova et al., Reference Iarskaia-Smirnova, Kononenko, Kosova and Yarskaya2021; Iarskaia-Smirnova and Lyons, Reference Iarskaia-Smirnova and Lyons2018; Yasaveev, Reference Yasaveev2020; Nizamova, Reference Nizamova2020). Social policy ideologies have been critically scrutinised, with contradictions and dilemmas in current reforms examined and issues of discrimination affecting various social groups explored (Cook and Iarskaia-Smirnova, Reference Cook and Iarskaia-Smirnova2023; Grigoryeva and Sidorenko, Reference Grigoryeva and Sidorenko2019; Logvinenko, Reference Logvinenko2020). The voice of service users is reflected in studies of empowerment strategies, advocacy and self-help efforts, which use qualitative methodology (Nartova et al., Reference Nartova, Krupets and Shilova2020).

Cross-national comparisons are rare but there exist some studies of factors affecting use of preschool services (Pelikh and Tyndik, Reference Pelikh and Tyndik2014), children’s rights implementation (Schmidt and Shchurko, Reference Schmidt and Shchurko2014), subjective well-being (Salnikova, Reference Salnikova2019) and public attitudes to the welfare state (Fabrykant, Reference Fabrykant2016). The role of nongovernmental organisations in social policy is a new topic, often studied in collaboration between Russian and international authors (Tarasenko and Kulmala, Reference Tarasenko and Kulmala2016; Bindman et al., Reference Bindman, Kulmala and Bogdanova2019; Sätre et al., Reference Sätre, Varyzgina and Granberg2020). To explain civil society developments, researchers have made use of interviews and survey data, as well as compared statistics of the rise of non-governmental social service providers among Russian regions to demonstrate the peculiarities of the state welfare regime (Cook et al., Reference Cook, Iarskaia-Smirnova and Tarasenko2021; Mersiyanova et al., Reference Mersiyanova, Kononykhina, Sokolowski, Salamon, Salamon, Sokolowski and Haddock2017). Changing state and nongovernmental organisations relationships have been studied in terms of the political and policy context of the relations between state and nonprofit sector, highlighting the consequences of changes (Bogdanova et al., Reference Bogdanova, Cook and Kulmala2018).

Challenges faced by the welfare systems of Russia and European countries due to the COVID-19 pandemic focused critical attention on social protection and health-related measures and their effects on various groups (e.g. Walker, Reference Walker2023). Dugarova (Reference Dugarova2023) compared policy responses to economic and social impacts of the COVID-19 crisis in Russia and Finland. The pandemic was an exogenous shock to welfare states across Europe and globally. Russian and Finnish governments responded with multi-faceted anti-crisis relief packages. Both allocated support to families, workers, businesses and vulnerable social groups, in addition to planned social expenditures.

Comparative studies, however, are generally lacking in this area. The analytical reports that contain comparative information published by international organisations are based on key strategic and policy documents of the international organisations (e.g. World Health Organisation, UNICEF), academic publications, and contributions of experts in social protection, health and wellbeing. Comparative analysis of inclusion of children with migration experience into the educational settings in the host countries requires selection of the variables driven by the specific theoretical framework, e.g. multiculturalism, exclusion, factors of students’ performance, barriers and resources of social integration in the conditions of concentrated disadvantage. Analytic reports by international organisations present comparative policy analysis and recommendations in relation to human rights and sustainable development millennium goals (Borgonovi et al., Reference Borgonovi, Phair and Piacentini2015). They aim to provide an overview of the main child rights violations and equity gaps in the realisation of rights, key barriers and bottlenecks. However, such reports typically do not represent a systematic and comprehensive review of countries’ issues and actions. Their aim is to stimulate debate and inspire action among governments, international organisations and policymakers on what is possible to protect vulnerable groups during the crisis (Lima et al., Reference Lima, Lippi and Tessier2020).

The comparative cross-national research articles in journals and monographs can be considered as case studies where each country becomes a case for an analysis structured by variables selected according to a chosen framework. Nemec et al. (Reference Nemec, Maly and Chubarova2021) compared policy responses to the COVID-19 pandemic and their probable results in three countries: the Czech Republic, the Russian Federation, and the Slovak Republic. In addition to the multiple case study approach, researchers have also used qualitative comparative policy analysis. They found that the COVID-19 health outcomes differ significantly among the selected countries and in different time periods. In a similar vein, Dugarova (Reference Dugarova2023) emphasised the role of economic resources in determining the comparative scale of expenditures, while government capacities and priorities determined how relief funds were distributed differentially to benefit specific social groups and economic sectors. The study by Nemec et al. (Reference Nemec, Maly and Chubarova2021) also highlights specificities and similarities of the COVID-19 health outcomes of selected post-Soviet countries in comparison with worldwide patterns. The study confirmed that in the three countries studied, the timing of policy responses and the success in motivating compliance represent important critical factors in containing the pandemic. The selected countries, according to this analysis, achieved different anti-pandemic results, probably because the timing of their public policy responses and their success in promoting compliance were different. A specific feature of this sample is that ‘democratic’ countries (Czechia and Slovakia) were claimed to be more successful than the more authoritarian regime in Russia.

Pension reforms attract attention of scholars who mostly study national cases (e.g. Sinyavskaya, Reference Sinyavskaya2017), while comparative analysis, including Russia and European countries, is less popular. In their comparative case study of pension reforms in Poland and Russia, Kowalczyk-Rólczyńska et al. (Reference Kowalczyk-Rólczyńska, Borda and Grishchenko2017) chose such variables as contribution level, retirement age and replacement rate. According to their study, despite the need for long-term stability, persistent volatility can be observed in the pension systems employed in Poland and Russia, reflected mostly in changes in the legal regulations and the principles of calculation and obtaining pension benefits; this had the deleterious effect of limiting participants’ confidence in the system. Prisyazhniuk and Sokhey (Reference Prisyazhniuk and Sokhey2023) compared reforms in Russia and Hungary designed to reduce the short-term burden and improve long-term sustainability of pension systems in both states. Both states have accumulated expensive pension obligations, with their pension dependency ratios are worsening as smaller cohorts enter labour forces. Contrary to the expectations of the authors, they found instead that these reforms succeeded more readily in Hungary, while in Russia they were slowed by bureaucratic infighting and inadequate information about popular expectations.

Comparative cross-country research into pro-natalist policies combines discourse and policy analysis embracing statistical data. The analysis provided in scholarly articles and international organisational reports (Edenborg, Reference Edenborg2021; Scigliano, Reference Scigliano2021) would suggest that pro-natalism in Russia and Europe is interwoven with nationalist and religious discourses. The authors view the nationalist neoconservatism as a new transnational phenomenon combining critic of gender ‘with a critique of neoliberalism and globalisation’ (Graf and Korolczuk, Reference Graf and Korolczuk2022: 164). The success of populist movements in identifying gender as a problem has been described as the ‘symptoms and consequences of deeper socio-economic, political and cultural crises of liberal democracy’ (Kováts, Reference Kováts, Köttig, Bitzan and Petö2017: 185). Cook et al. (Reference Cook, Iarskaia-Smirnova and Kozlov2023) focused on efforts by governments in Russia, Poland and Hungary to stem serious population decline that has depleted labour resources. All three governments responded to what have been seen as demographic threats with mixes of pro-natalist incentives, support for families, restrictions on women’s reproductive rights and re-traditionalising ideological pressures.

Strengthening comparative research involving Russia, EU8 and EU15

The development and funding of coherent programmes of comparative studies of welfare and inclusion to address existing knowledge gaps would be of particular value to scholars, policymakers and donors. Currently there is much concern among governments and agencies about comparative learning in terms of policies and programmes for refugee populations and internally displaced populations arising from geopolitical conflict, including the waves of those fleeing or displaced by the conflict in Ukraine. Other groups of concern include retirees whose pensions leave them in poverty, migrants who lack the social rights of citizenship, children who are not educated or integrated in their countries of immigration and those who have lost access to income and connections to formal welfare institutions during the coronavirus pandemic. Such examples can help provide a valuable illustration of the specificity of lived experiences, transitions in life and inclusive policies and practices in diverse aspects of comparative contexts. This includes the role and nature of mediators such as the informal management of personal welfare, as in the case of coping strategies in such contexts (Titterton, Reference Titterton2006; Titterton and Smart, Reference Titterton and Smart2015). In future research, scholars could usefully consider the development of wellbeing and provision of welfare in a holistic way, rather than mainly focus on state-provided forms of welfare. In the context of post-communist countries, care supplied by the informal sector, as well as the non-governmental sectors, has been an important feature (see e.g. Cook, Reference Cook2013; Davidova et al., Reference Davidova, Manning, Palosuo, Koivusalo, Manning and Tikhonova2009; Polese et al., Reference Polese, Morris, Kovacs and Harboe2014). This would fit well with the formality/informality tension of the welfare polity mentioned earlier.

Fresh comparative efforts could also stimulate methodological innovation, which is presently rather limited in the region, and encourage the building of comparative datasets. Existing datasets include the likes of European Social Survey, International Social Survey Programme and European Values Study (Ferragina and Deeming, Reference Ferragina, Deeming, Yerkes, Nelson and Nieuwenhuis2022). Anyone familiar with European databases will recognise issues associated with definition and coverage, the inclusion or otherwise of Russian data, and selection of substitute indicators intended to make up for gaps, not always an ideal measure. We would draw attention to the pressing need for the development of systematic cross-national and temporal data on the design and implementation of social policies and social protection. This is something called for by several researchers over the years with respect of other regions of the world (see e.g. Mares and Carnes, Reference Mares and Carnes2009).

We would very much like to see further comparative research efforts in collaboration with international scholars involving Russia and other post-communist states alongside Western nations, particularly on the topic of integration and inclusion of socially excluded groups. The funding and encouragement of knowledge exchange networks and opportunities, currently frozen due to the Ukraine conflict and continuing impacts of the coronavirus pandemic, would be an extremely helpful first step to take.