COURSE CODE BCO121-BCN1974 COURSE NAME ETHICS IN BUSINESS Ta

COURSE CODE BCO121-BCN1974 COURSE NAME ETHICS
IN BUSINESS Task brief & rubrics
Task
• This is an individual task.
• The professor will provide a list of organizations for every
student to choose one. It is very important that every student
has a different organization.
• Students must do research about this organization and develop
a case study following the questions/guide here below:
A. A brief description of the organization.
B. Mention and briefly define its objectives.
C. What are the ethical values or principles guiding the
organization according to their website?
D. To what extent does the organization apply those principles
or values? Use examples to support your conclusions.
• Contextual information:
o The student must make sure:
▪ That the challenges related to operating at an international
level are considered in the answer. This topic is discussed in
class session 2.

▪ That the evaluation whether of the extent to which the
organization applies those principles is based on the theoretical
frameworks and
concepts/concepts discussed from session 1 to 3.
• Expected table of contents:
o Introduction
o Body
o Conclusions
o References
• Students must upload a case study in pdf format.
Formalities:
• Wordcount: 1,500 +/-10%
• Cover, Table of Contents, References and Appendix are
excluded of the total wordcount.
• Font: Arial 12,5 pts.
• Text alignment: Justified.
• The in-text References and the Bibliography have to be in
Harvard’s citation style.
Submission: Week 4 – Via Moodle (Turnitin). February the
19th, 2021 22:00 CET.

Weight: This task is a 30% of your total grade for this subject.
It assesses the following learning outcomes:
• Outcome 1: Understand the concept of sustainability and its
implications and become familiar with the main approaches to
business ethics and corporate social
responsibility;
• Outcome 4: Understand commonly-occurring ethical issues
and dilemmas in managing businesses;
• Outcome 7: Communicate in terms of responsibility and
accountability.
Rubrics
Exceptional 90-100 Good 80-89 Fair 70-79 Marginal fail 60-69
Fail <60
Knowledge &
Understanding (30%)
Student demonstrates
excellent understanding of
the task and basic key
concepts or theories.
Student uses a wide range

of vocabulary in an entirely
appropriate manner.
good understanding of the
task and mentions some
relevant basic concepts or
theories. The student uses
some vocabulary in an
appropriate manner.
Student demonstrates fair
understanding of the task
and mentions few relevant
basic concepts or theories.
The student uses little
vocabulary in an
appropriate manner. Some
of the vocabulary might be
used inaccurately.
marginally inadequate
and does not mention key
basic concepts or theories.
The student uses very little
amount of relevant
vocabulary or uses it in an
entirely inadequate manner.
Student fails to
demonstrate an
and does not mention
any basic key concepts or

theories.
Evaluation
(30%)
Student makes an excellent
evaluation of the
organization’s ethical
performance. Provides
excellent conceptual
(concepts or theories) and
factual (examples or data)
grounds for said evaluation.
Student makes a good
evaluation of the
performance and considers
different approaches to
ethics. Provides some
conceptual (concepts or
theories) or factual
(examples or data) grounds
for said evaluation.
Student makes a fair
evaluation of the
performance. Provides little
conceptual (concepts or
theories) or factual
(examples or data) grounds
for said evaluation.
Student makes little attempt

to evaluate the
performance. There is very
little or no consideration of
different approaches.
Student makes no
appreciable attempt to
evaluate the
performance.
Communication
(10%)
The student communicates
the results of their work
very accurately and
reliably, and with very well
structured and coherent
arguments, respecting
word count, grammar and
spellcheck. The student
makes excellent use of
Harvard citation style at all
times.
the results of their
study/work with some
accuracy and reliability, and
with structured and
coherent arguments and
respecting word count.
There may be very few
grammar and spellcheck

errors. The student uses
Harvard citation style most
of the time and with very
few errors.
the results of their
study/work with some
accuracy and reliability. The
arguments may lack some
structure and coherence.
The work falls below or
above the word count by
20%. There are some
grammar and spellcheck
errors. The student
attempts to cite and
reference their work but
does not use Harvard style.
the results of their work with
very little accuracy and
reliability. The arguments
lack structure and
coherence. The work falls
below or above the word
count by 20% to 30%. There
are several grammar and
spellcheck errors. The
students presents sources
but there is no attempt to
cite or reference them.
The student
communicates the results

of their work with no
accuracy nor reliability.
The arguments entirely
lack structure and
coherence. The work falls
below or above the word
count by more than 30%.
There are many grammar
and spellcheck errors
that make it very difficult
to read the work. The
student does not present
sources.
Article Evaluation
16 Feb
Justification for the use of the technique.
In order to measure the perceived changes in family
relationships in St. Petersburg during the said period of
economic change, data is collected using different statistical
techniques. The most recommended technique is the non-
probability method. It is used because it believed that the result
of calculated data on the specified topic makes it more valuable.
This technique provides more precise results as compared to the
others. It is justified that the results through this technique is
statistically more accurate because we does to door data
collection technique is used. But there is one thing that is
remarkable. Which is that the bias is a term which may be
present in this statistical technique. Because due to door to door
collection there are many factors that may be present which
cause bias. For the purpose of inferential analysis, linear
regression is used to check the relationship between
independent and dependent variables.

Evidence of data screening and assumptions tested.
This data is gathered through a questionnaire. The questionnaire
asked about for their perceptions of their present and past
relationships, and because the results may entail inaccuracies
due to reconstructions, bad memory, or nostalgia, there is
reason to treat them with cautions.
On the other hand, the commonly held assumption that most
human memories are reconstructed rather than recalled may not
be entirely accurate.
Quality of the results presentation with complete information
needed to evaluate the result.
Since the relationship quality with siblings and parents
registered an insignificant difference in means over the four -
time periods, no regressions are run on these. Instead,
relationship quality with children and the spouse, whose 1983
values correlate at .423 and factor together under one
component with a .844 loading, are combined into a composite
close family relationship quality index with 1983 as a base. It is
clear from the results presented above that individuals
interviewed in this study have perceived a decline in the quality
of their relationships between 1983 and 1998, with no better
than stagnation thereafter. Regarding possible reasons for this
deterioration, linear regressions are performed to test the
influence of respondents' reported causes of relationship
problems on relationship quality. Therefore, three linear
regressions have been performed corresponding to the last three
time measurements of each of two dependent variables: close
family relationship quality and extended family relationship
quality. Each dependent variable is predicted based on the
previous value of the same variable, the age and sex of the
respondent, and the effects of contemporaneous and previous
income, family cohesion, and the 13 reported relationship
problems.
Discussion of results supported by the information offered
According to the respondents, the results are clearly significant.
there was a clear statistically significant deterioration in

happiness with relationships, relationship quality with spouses,
children, and extended family, and in the frequencies of close
families eating together and extended family gatherings when
comparing 1983 and 2003. Regarding the specific transition
periods, each of the above variables, except the frequency of
eating meals together, shows significant decline in the 10 years
between 1983 and 1993. Over the last transition period, from
1998 to 2003, none of these relationship or cohesion variables
shows significant change. What stands out from this part of the
analysis, aside from the notable 1983 to 1998 deterioration, is
also that none of these variables ever shows a significant
increase. Even after the steep drop in most relationship
variables between 1983 and 1998, none of these recovers
between 1998 and 2003.
Suggestions for improving the report.
This particular study has attempted to connect perceptions of
deteriorating family relationships directly to the period of
economic change in St. Petersburg. The intent is not to imply
that other cultural factors, such as changing religious and
poetical values, evolving gender roles, or shifts in family
functions, have had no influence. In addition, similar research
conducted with a probability sampling technique may verify and
help to generalize this study's results. Furthermore, the use of
longitudinal data would be a sure-fire way to measure
relationship changes without the doubts often raised with
retrospective studies.
The Lost Years: Assessing Family Change
in St. Petersburg, Russia, between 1983 and 2003*
Christopher S. Swader**
The transition from cotnmunism to capitalism following the

breakup ofthe U.S.S.R. provides
a unique opportunity to analyze the itnpact of radical social
change upon 'the relationship.'
Within this study, the city of St. Petersburg serves as a
laboratory in which to see how this
transformation affected perceptions of social relationships,
specifically those within the
family.
A concern about "the deteriorating effectiveness of the family
as a source of moral and
social guidance and values" (Hopper, 2003:36) motivates this
investigation. The basic
assumption behind such a worry is that the social relationship
serves as the glue that binds
individuals together, and is thus the mechanism through which
social order is maintained.
Family relationships are particularly important because of their
role in imprinting, enforcing,
and maintaining social norms.
With such concerns in mind, this article first reports on whether
or not respondents in St.
Petersburg, Russia, have perceived a change in the quality of
their family relationships
between 1983 and 2003. Second, the immediate causes of
reported changes are explored
through analyzing multiple regression results. Third, two family
change perspectives, those
of family stress and of individualization, are used to interpret
the results. These three issues
are dealt with through the lens of retrospective questionnaire
data collected in St. Petersburg
in the summer of 2003.
HISTORICALOVERVIEW

The Family
In order to frame this analysis, it is necessary to first briefly
introduce the historical context
ofthe Soviet family before seeing how it may have changed after
the fall ofthe U.S.S.R. On
the one hand, the Soviet state was highly anti-social and
espoused policies that were
destructive for families. Shlapentokh (1991) describes how the
Russian family in Stalinist
* The author is thankful for ihe advice of Baldo Blinkert of the
University of Freiburg and for ihe fieldwork
assistance provided in St. Petersburg by Nina Oding of the
Leontief Centre, Lyuba Ejova of the Centre for
Independetit Social Research, and Maria Yashina of Herzen
University. Many thanks as well to Andreas
Obermaier of the University of Bremen and to anonymous
reviewers for their feedback and careful reading.
**Graduate School of Social Sciences (GSSS), University of
Bremen, Germany, [email protected]
318 Joumal of Comparative Family Studies
times lived under three immense pressures. First, state ideology,
not the family, was the chief
determinant of social values, and these values both emphasized
public life over private life
and work over family. Second, the Soviet state before and
through Stalin's reign existed in
conditions of stark material poverty. According to Sblapentokh
(1991), tbis poverty

exacerbated the low-priority of family life because the poor
living conditions within Soviet
homes and communal apartments of that era provided little
incentive to spend time with tbe
family within tbem. Tbe third and most direct pressure exacted
by tbe Soviet state against
the stability of families was that it pitted family members
against one anotber in its mecbanisms
of repression. Stalinist intelligence services set cbildren against
parents., wives against
husbands, and neighbors against eacb otber by encouraging
them to spy on one anotber.
This sort of treachery, woven into every-day life by tbe state, in
Sblapentokh's (1991) view,
made family life tense. These pressures on the family were
apparently great because people
reportedly "devoted little time and energy to their famihes"
(Sblapentokb, 1991:267). Another
researcher. Malysheva (1992:10), has dubbed tbe Soviet person
of this era "Homo Sovieticus,"
a human being "completely deprived of its social roots."
On tbe other hand, the Soviet family became a sanctuary from
tbe state, a place wbere state
ideology could not intrude. Under the strain of tbe above
pressures, family members relied
more upon one another. As Sblapentokh (1991:267) puts it,
"when faced witb the Stalinist
leviathan, the Soviet people tumed to their families for
protection against the horrors of
everyday life." Similarly, Malysbeva (1992:3) called family
"the only place of expression and
resistance in a spiritual vacuum." Furthermore, tbe pressures
that affected Russian families
especially in Stalin's time weakened considerably at tbe latter
end of Soviet rule, to the

benefit of the family. The ideological collapse entailing tbe
failure of communist ideals and
the declining authority of the state, tbe improvement in living
conditions, and tbe decline of
repression allowed family life to "re-emerge" (Sblapentokb,
1991:269).
This re-emergence of tbe importance of family life was
apparently short-lived, for signs of
family decay and of a greater Russian social deterioration were
obvious by the late 198O's.
Descriptions of Russian families in the eighties and in tbe years
afterwards often use tbe
mantra of "demoralization" (Malysbeva, 1992; Shlapentokh.
1991). This demoralization did
not reach a critical mass until it was catalyzed by tbe total loss
of popular trust in socialist
reality and ideology with glasnost and perestroika in tbe 198O's.
By tbe moment of the
collapse of tbe U.S.S.R., tbe decline of the family was fully
visible. For example, in 1991,
Shlapentokb (1991) called tbe demoralization of Soviet society
and tbe erosion of social
bonds the main threat to the Russian family. He notes that many
Soviet writers of this period
decried the "loss of prestige of family in society," "tbe
devaluation of tbe family," and "the
collapse of tbe family" (Shlapentokh. 1991:272). Malysheva
(1992) was no exception and
argued during tbis period tbat the demoralization of society was
causing tbe demoralization
of tbe family and would lead to a subsequent rise in crime,
alcohol consumption, drug use,
prostitution, runaways, and divorce rates.
The Eomomy

Tbe economic crises of tbe 199O's provide the context within
wbicb tbe family change of tbis
period should be viewed. Russia's initial transformation from a
centrally planned to a market
economy entailed at least five significant aspects. The archite cts
of this transformation
The Lost Years: Assessing Family Change 319
called it 'shock therapy,' and while it certainly caused a shock
for the population, whether or
not the economic changes were 'therapeutic' lies in the eye of
the beholder. These reforms
initially caused a fall in living standards of nearly all parts of
the population (Komozin, 1993).
First, in January 1992, prices were freed from their artificial
fixed levels, causing massive
inflation. Second, the government had to balance its budget. It
instituted an austerity plan
which made large cuts to almost all public welfare programs,
such as health, education,
pensions, and social services (Malysheva, 1992:153). Third, the
Ruble was opened up to
international trade, and its drop in value made it even harder for
Russians to deal with
inflation. Fourth, privatization wa.s implemented. What was
supposed to be a transfer of
property to workers and managers instead became a sale of state
property to government
cronies at well-below market prices (Koliandre, 2001). This
"sale of the century" (Freeland,
20(X)) created a new class of Russian oligarchs who became

rich by stripping state enterprises
of their assets, resulting in a loss of enterprise efficiency
(Stiglitz, 2002:144). Fifth, the
inefficient Soviet industrial economy was subjected to market
forces with paralyzing
consequences. 80 percent of the Soviet economy fell somewhere
within the military industrial
complex. The subjection of these industries to market pressures
caused a partial industrial
collapse. In 1992, the country's GDP decreased by 14.5 percent
from the previous year. In
1993. the decrease was 8.7 percent, and in 1994, 12.7 percent.
The decline of the rate of
industrial production was even greater: 18 percent in 1992.14
percent in 1993, and 21 percent
in 1994 (Polozhevets, 2001). The human result of these GDP
downturns was, of course,
unemployment.
To make matters worse, in addition to the shock therapy
characterizing Russia's initial market
transformation, more economic trouble occurred in 1998.
Partially because of the Asian
crisis of 1997. international speculation, and falling oil prices,
Russia's currency collapsed in
August of 1998. The ruble lost 75 percent of its value almost
instantly, and as a result, the
govenunent defaulted on its foreign debt. In addition, people's
purchasing power evaporated,
wiping out the emerging Russian middle class, and this problem
was compounded by the
collapse of businesses and high unemployment. Banks also
failed during this time, as the
Russian stock market, where the main index had grown five
times larger between 1995 and
1997, lost 93 percent of its value in half a year (Meier, 1999;

Polozhevets, 2001).
Since the 1998 crisis, the Russian and St. Petersburg economies
have begun to recover, with
the St. Petersburg gross regional product growing by nearly
seven percent in the first year
after the ruble devaluation, in 1999 (ETLA, 2000). Now, Russia
is in the midst of solid
economic growth, hoping to double its GDP in 10 years. It has
also been removed from the
list of 'hyper-inflationary' economies (International Bank of St.
Petersburg, 2002). Therefore,
now is a time of economic hope for St. Petersburg, especially
when compared with the
disastrous 199O's.
Given the consensus that family decay had already begun by the
moment of the Soviet
collapse and that radical changes were brought about by the
decade of economic collapse
and recovery which followed, it is fair to ask how the Russian
family might have fared during
this roller coaster ride after the collapse of socialism.
320 Journal of Comparative Family Studies
MEIHOD
In order to measure the perceived changes in family
relationships in St. Petershurg during
the said period of economic change, data collected from 120 St.
Petersburg residents through
a questionnaire administered in the summer of 2003 are used. A
non-probability quota

sample was collected because of resource constraints and the
well-known (and, perhaps,
well-justified) suspicions of many Russian respondents toward
door-to-door interviewers.
It is believed that the total dearth of quantitative data on the
topic makes this data valuable
to analyze despite the generalization difficulties due to the
sampling style. Since panel data
are unavailable, a retrospective questionnaire format was
chosen as a means of assessing
changes in respondents, family relationships during the period
of transformation.
The questionnaire asks respondents to recall their relationships
and the problems within
them in four years: 2003, 1998, 1993, and 1983, The time
period 15 years ago, 1988, was
omitted because of a desire to focus specifically on 1993
through 2003 (the years of radical
economic change) while using 1983 as abase.
Respondents were first asked to rate the curTent (2003) quality
of five sets of relationships
with the following family members: their parents, their siblings,
their children, their spouse,
and their other relatives. Five possible responses (excellent,
good, neutral, bad, or very
bad) were available. Respondents were then asked about these
same relationships 5 vears
ago, 10 years ago. and 20 years ago. Finally, measures of family
cohesion, specifically the
"frequency of eating together with immediate family" and the
"frequency of extended family
gatherings/' were also collected in order to measure the
regularity of basic face-to-face
social interactions within families.

Regarding the immediate causes of relationship changes, after
respondents evaluated each
relationship within the four time periods, the questionnaire
asked: "if there are problems in
this relationship, what are their main causes?" Respondents
could choose up to three
problems including an "other" blank where they could write
their own response. Their
responses were coded into the following 13 problem codes: "the
other person moved away
from St. Petersburg." "I or they work too much," "arguments
about money," "unemployment."
"substance abuse." "they care more about their income than
their family," "they care more
about their friends than their family." "difference in
personalities," "other: (non-economic),"
"Aging/Health related." "Rarely meet or live in different cities,"
"Household related problems,"
or "other (economic)."
The complete questionnaire was composed of 75 questions and
required an average of 20-25
minutes to complete. Interviewers' collected questionnaires
from a quota sample of 120 St.
Petersburg residents between the ages of 30 and 69. This
population was divided into two
age groups, the first between 30 and 49 and the second between
50 and 69. 50 percent of the
questionnaires were collected from each age group. Next, the
age groups were broken down
into gender according to the city's actual demographics, with
roughly 52 percent women in
the younger group, and 55 percent women in the older group.
Finally, five of the city's

' St. Petersburg sociology professor Maria Yashina from Herzeti
University assisted with the task of
administering the questionnaires by leading a team of her
students as interviewers.
districts were cbosen into which to distribute the sample: two
higher income districts,
Vasileostrovsky and Vyiborsky; two lower income districts.
Fruzensky and Nevsky; and one
central and very diverse district, Zentralny. The four respondent
groups (older women,
younger women, older men, younger men) were then distributed
into each of these districts
based on the actual population size of each district. Interviewers
were then assigned to a
particular district with a quota for each respondent group. They
traveled to areas where
people had free time, such as outside subway stations (where
there were sometimes long
lines while crews perform maintenance) or to parks, approached
the first lone person who
appeared to meet the quota criteria, and requested to administer
the questionnaire. In the
end. roughly 75 percent of the 120respondents were collected in
this manner. 25 percent of
the questionnaires were completed via telephone using the same
quota guidelines at the end
of the collection period because of time constraints.
The method used here to measure the quality of relationships,
retrospection, raises an
important concern. This questionnaire asked respondents for

their perceptions of their
present and past relationships, and because the results may
entail inaccuracies due to
reconstructions, bad memory, or nostalgia, there is reason to
treat them with caution. On the
other hand, the commonly held assumption that most human
memories are reconstructed
rather than recalled may not be entirely accurate. For example.
Herrmann (1994) concluded,
based on results from a series of experiments he conducted, that
the reconstruction — as
opposed to direct recall — of memories is relatively infrequent.
Therefore, although studies
advise the need to exercise care when using retrospection, and it
is thus unclear how accurate
retrospective relationship valuations might be, there is
nonetheless no reason to outright
reject the potential research value of retrospective data.
Especially considering that
longitudinal data are unavailable for tbis research question,
retrospective data must be
considered.
RESULTS: DETERIORATING RELATIONSHIPS AND
COHESION
To answer the primary research question conceming the fate of
family relationships in St.
Petersburg between 1983 and 2003. the one-way repeated
measures ANOVA results and
pairwise mean differences of three types of data collected by
the questionnaire are presented
within Tables 1 and 2:
1. Changes in the perceived relationship quality of the five
relationships between 1983 and

2003.
2. Changes in reported family cohesion, that is in the frequency
of immediate families
eating together and of extended family gatherings, between
1983 and 2003.
3. Changes in reported family relationship happiness between
1983 and 2003.
Relationship Quality
Relationsbip quality was determined by asking respondents to
rate tbe quality of their
relationships with their parents, siblings, children, other
relatives, and spouse on a five-
point scale during the four time periods.
ir
w
is
e
a
^
o
c
CO
OO

—
m
ON
^ ^
m
•i
so
ns
B
Q
CO
(as)
(-1
t o
CO
ar
ia
:2
00
3
g:
A

c5v
A
0 0
O ^
*
*
*
O
" ^
3.
97
.8
84
OO
m
o
<—
—
***
1/3
a.
on
sh

ra
î
w
it
h
d .
rA
0 0
c^
t/i
—
4.
(M
.6
69
1 ^
m
, _ i
o
'":
m
o
CM

70
)
en
ts
a.
•B
a.
-C
o
o:
0 0
ON
fA
O N
ON
C
o
p -
3.
81
.6
44

, _
r-
m
f M
OO
m
- ^
"M
OO
00
m
(6
9
in
gs
si
b
•5
a.
r.
c
o
•s
3J

rn
i
a-'
ON
A
0 0
O N
ON
0 0
^
IP
OO
4.
08
.7
44
m
O
' ^
r-
o
99)
dr

en
eh
i
•S
a.
c
o
n j
(1)
o:
OO
8?
A
OO
A
O N
A
OO
UN
*
*
*

r-
o
r-
o
3.
62
.5
79
„_
m
OO
V I
N P
m
ON
OO
m
at
iv
er
re
l

o
•S
D .
-C
t / i
O
re
a;
fe
20
03
19
98
<!
°6
m
ON
A
on
*
#
•—•
OO

OO
4.
22
.7
86
r-
( — 1
m
us
e
(
Q .
Q .
,n
c
o
at
oi
m
0;<£
0 0
O v

m
00
o
4.
42
1.
01
]
o
_^
"^
o5
m
%
et
he
r
o
ea
ti
3(

1
cj 2c -^
3 ^
P
̂ r"
.2
00
3
s;
A
m
ON
A
0 0
—
3.
42
(
1.
44
)
m
m
m

m
—:
8
'̂
li
ly
t
•o
oj ; ^
OJ —
o ^
3 .£
JJ Si
PL,
O VI
o
P<
-
*
c
vl

ex.
*
y ^
gn
i
"m
O
Z
d
U
es
ul
A
N
O
V
A
1
s

at
ed
M
O
n
e-
W
ay
I
u
a
u
if
fe
re
n
Q
ea
•w
is
e
M
e;
i

"at9
u
1
19
93
.
19
93
.
19
83
,
19
83
,
19
83
,
TD
&
E
o
CJ
Si
a.

o
>
m
pa
re
d
o
o
m
p
ar
e
o
co
m
p
ar
ed
•o
D
m

pa
re
g
tN
o
m
>
20
0
•^
0 0
• "
to
2
0
0
3
to
1
9
9
8
m

O
"2
• c
n
wi
d
*
9
1
*
*
2
8
9
*
*
6
7
5
*
*
*
.4
7
4
*
*
*

.1
84
*
ip
s{
c
o
la
ti<
Wl
1)
na.
o.
ui
d
n
.s
.
n
.s
.
n
.s
.

.2
2
9
*
n
.s
.
:7
0
)
c
KJ
a.x :
:S
a.
Wl
( =
O
u
a;
wi
d
n
.s
.

.1
30
*
n
.s
.
n
.s
.
n
.s
.
(6
9
)
DO
C
si
bl
sz
a
c
o

DS
ui
d
n
.s
.
n
.s
.
.2
42
*
'
.2
8
8
*
*
.1
82
*
(6
6)
Ir

en
ch
i!
x :
a.
sh
i
c
o
a
D
OH.
d
13
5*
n
.s
.
2
6
0
*
*
*
.1

7
7
*
*
.1
25
*
•2o^
''—'
at
iv
i
rr
el
(L)
o
x;
S
a
o
QJ
wi
d
n.

s.
n.
s.
.3
15
**
***£££
24
1*
*
a
W l
3
a.
5
:S
a.
c
o
fl
a:
t/i

d
n
.s
.
n
.s
.
.3
13
**
n
.s
.
n
.s
.
• w
it
th
ei
OD
M r^
C -J

<u ^
C - ^
[ 1 .
ui
d
23
4*
.2
25
*
*
*
r-
.5
68
**
*
#
*
*
rn
.I"
1

UJ
-a
c
a j
o
>>
(D
3
O "
—
ZZ
"en"
OX)
C
• c
6
O VI
^ VI
< »
As shown in Tables I and 2, overall reported relationship
quality with parents cannot be said
to significantly change over time. However, reported quality of

relationships with parents in
1983 is significantly higher than in 1998, the year of the ruble
crash.
Similarly, relationship quality with siblings shows no
significant change over time. The lone
significant pairwise comparison is that relationships among
siblings were reported as stronger
in 1993 than in 1998.
Regarding relationships with children, Table 1 shows a
significant (p<.01) difference between
the four time periods. Specifically, relationship quality with
children in 1983 is significantly
higher than in any period thereafter.
Perceived relationship quality with other relatives, which was
defmed as any relatives except
for parents, siblings, children, the spouse, grandparents, or
grandchildren, also shows
significant deterioration (p<.001). with 1983 having a
significantly higher mean than every
latertimeperiod, and with 2003 significantly lower than 1993.
Finally, the tables show that relationship quality with the
spouse has deteriorated significantly
since 1983 (p<.001). Perceived 1983 spouse relationship quality
was significantly higher
than at any time period afterwards.
Family Cohesion
Cohesion was measured within the questionnaire in two ways.
First, for immediate family,
cohesion was defined as the frequency the family eats meals
together on a regular basis.

Table 1 demonstrates a gradual significant decline in how often
families eat together. In 1983,
respondents report having eaten together with their families
significantly more often than in
2003.
Extended family cohesion was defined by how often
respondents' families held extended
family gatherings. This type of social activity decreased steeply
between 1983 and 1998.
There were more reported extended family gatherings in 1983
than in 1993, and more in 1993
than in 1998 or 2(X)3. However, the frequency of these
gatherings has leveled off between
1998 and 2003 and has not experienced further deterioration.
Relationship Happiness
Respondents were asked to respond to the question, "Are you
happy with your relationships
with your family?" This question was asked for each of the four
time periods and was
answered on the following five-point scale: No, Mostly No,
Maybe, Mostly Yes, or Yes. As
seen in Tables 1 and 2, one-way repeated measures ANOVA
analysis shows a very significant
(p<.001) difference between respondents' happiness w ith tbeir
relationships in the four time
periods. Respondents' reported 1983 happiness with their
relationships is significantly
higher than their 1993 relationships, and they report that they
were also happier in 1993 than
in either 1998 or 2003. In short, the data indicate a noticeable
perceived decline in happiness

The Lost Years: AsseJising Family Change 325
with relationships between 1983 and 1998. Although there is a
decline as well in the mean of
relationship happiness during the economic recovery from 1998
to 2003, it is not statistically
significant. What is significant is the low happiness with
relationships in 2003 compared to
1993 or 1983.
RESULTS: IMMEDIATE CAUSES OF DETERIORATION
It is clear from the results presented above that individuals
interviewed in this study have
perceived a decline in the quality of their relationships between
1983 and 1998, with no better
than stagnation thereafter. Regarding possible reasons for this
deterioration, linear regressions
are performed to test the influence of respondents' reported
causes of relationship problems
on relationship quality.
Since the relationship quality with siblings and parents
registered an insignificant difference
in means over the four time periods, no regressions are run on
these. Instead, relationship
quality with children and the spouse, whose 1983 values
correlate at .423 and factor together
under one component with a .844 loading, are combined into a
composite close family
relationship quality index with 1983 as a base. In addi tion, an
extended family relationship
quality variable ("other" relatives) is also used as a dependent
variable. Also, since it is not
central to this article's interests in tracing causes of the changes

in the reported quality of
relationships over time, results of regressions performed with
relationship happiness as a
dependent variable are not reported here.
Therefore, three linear regressions have been performed
corresponding to the last three time
measurements of each of two dependent variables: close family
relationship quality and
extended family relationship quality. The structure of these
regressions can be found in
Figure 1. Each dependent variable is predicted based on the
previous value of the same
variable, the age and sex of the respondent, and the effects of
contemporaneous and previous
income, family cohesion, and the 13 reported relationship
problems.
Close-Family Relationship Quality
As shown in column one in Table 3, regression results with
1993 close relationship quality as
a dependent variable show that females were less likely to
report high quality child and
spouse relationships in this year. Furthermore, it is notable that
the previous level of close
relationship quality in 1983 had no effect on later close
relationship quality in 1993, a fact that
could be explained by the vast socio-economic changes between
1983 and 1993. Regarding
contemporaneous effects, only the cohesion variable of the
frequency of eating together in
1993 had a positive significant effect on that year's close fa mily
relationship quality. However,
when one turns to previous 1983 influences, one sees that
earlier frequency of eating together

in 1983 has a Hf-gar/Ve effect on I993closefamily
relationships; this indicates that families
which were cohesive in 1983 were less likely to have close
family relationships in 1993, and
vice versa. Similarly, those who reported the problem that their
family members valued
friends more than the family in 1983 were more likely to enjoy
close family relationships in
1993. The remaining 1983 variable having influence on 1993
close relationship quality is the
"other (economic)" relationship problems, or those responses
that could not be clearly
cn
o
o
0 0
O
ON
s
C M
o
1 .
s
0 0
ON

-Q tu 8
CO ^
Q.
cn
o
lat
. ^
"E
o
O
CC
o
ity
ro
-—
I
• Q
aJ"O
c;<D
CD
t n

. 0
!™
9?
X
categorized into any of the twelve other problem groups, but
were clearly related to money.
The fact that 1983 "other economic" problems negatively
influence 1993 close relationships
could indicate that those families which already had money-
related problems before the
transformation were particularly ill-suited to face the big
economic transition to come.
Table 3
Variable
OLS Regression Results for Close Family Relationships (T
values)
1993 1998 2003
Adjusted R-Squared
Q l - A g e
Q3-Sex: Female
Previous Quality of Close Relationships
Contemporary Household Income
Contemporary Frequency of Eating Together
Contemporary Problem: Moving Away

Contemporary Problem: "Working too much"
Contemporary Problem: Arguments about money
Contemporary Problem: Unemployment
Contemporary Problem: Substance Abuse
Contemporary Problem: Value income more than family
Contemporary Problem: Value friends more than family
Contemporary Problem: Different Personalities
Contemporary Problem: Other (non-economic)
Contemporary Problem: Aging/Health
Contemporary Problem: Rarely Meet/Different Cities
Contemporary Problem: Household related
Contemporary Problem: Other (economic)
Previous Household Income
Previous Frequency of Eating Together
Previous Problem: Moving Away
Previous Problem: "Working too much"
Previous Problem: Arguments about money
Previous Problem: Unemployment
Previous Problem: Substance Abuse
Previous Problem: Value income more than family
Previous Problem: Value friends more than family
Previous Problem: Different Personalities
Previous Problem: Other (non-economic)
Previous Problem: Aging/Health
Previous Problem: Rarely Meet/Different Cities
Previous Problem: Household related
Previous Problem: Other (economic)
.816
-1.986
-2.811*
1.434
-2.024
2.511*
1.184

2.021
0.511
-1.146
0.2(M
0.927
-1.093
-0.485
-1.642
n.a.
0.020
0.421
n.a.
-0.290
-2.329*
-0.091
-2.053
-1.545
n.a.
-1.519
0.554
2.246*
-1.287
•^.192
-1.415
n.a.
1.435
-3.171**
.854
0.320

-0.403
5.821***
-0.208
-0.830
-1.998
0.736
-0.265
-2.262*
-1.293
0.414
-0.454
-0.084
-1.126
1.256
-2.071*
1247
0.122
-0.437
1.053
1.978
-1.557
-1.600
-0.154
-0.324
-0.736
1.263
-0.245
-0.0%
n.a.
1.528
1.863

n.a.
0.761
-0.437
2.033*
4.516***
0.626
2.250*
0.303
-0.292
-0.348
-2.610*
-4.092***
-0.375
-0259
-3.204**
-2.132*
0.769
0.680
-1.960
-0.812
0.060
-1.436
-1.063
0.418
0.087
-0.348
-0.009
-1.263
0.204
1.239

1.744
1.061
m.c.
1344
-2.621*
*p<.05. **p<.OI. ***p<.001
n.a. These items were deleted from the calculation because they
were either constants or lacked con-elations
with the dependent variable
m.c. Deleted because of multi-col linearity with same variable
of later time period.
As shown in Table 3, column two, with 1998 close relationship
quality as the dependent
variable, stability with the previous 1993 strength of close
relationships begins to exert a
strong influence. In addition, contemporary problems of
unemployment begin to negatively
affect child and spouse relationships. Finally, another
contemporary effect is that the problem
of "rarely meet or different cities" begins to negatively affect
close family relationships as
family members meet one another less often or may have moved
away. No previous 1993
variables, except for the previous close relationship quality,
have a significant influence on
1998 close family relationship quality.
Column three illustrates the results of linear regression
performed on 2003 close family

relationship quality as a dependent variable. First, the earlier
1993 effect having reversed
itself, women in 2003 report stronger close family relationships
than men. Next, there is once
again a strong stability effect from previous 1998 close
relationship quality. In addition, the
frequency of eating together positively influences close family
relationship quality. Also,
reported 2003 unemployment problems, substance abuse (mainly
alcoholism), "'other (non-
economic)" problems, and "different personalities" problems
exert a negative influence on
close family relationships. Finally. 1998 "'other (economic)"
relationship problems have a
detrimental impact on 2(X)3 close family relationships as well.
Extended-Family Relationship Quality
As shown within Table 4. column one, the strongest predictor of
reported 1993 extended
family relationship quality is the previous 1983 level, a result
that differs substantially from
findings on elose family relationships, where there was
evidence for a rupture between 1983
and 1993. Besides that, 1993 extended family relationships are
negatively influenced by the
perceived problem that relatives value their income more than
their family and by "'other
(economic)" problems. Except for the previous level of
extended family relationship quality,
no previous 1983 variables have a significant effect on extended
families in 1993.
In 1998, extended family relationships are also heavily
influenced by the previous 1993
extended family relationship quality. The only remaining factor

is that contemporary 1998
reported arguments about money negatively affect 1998
extended families.
2003 extended family relationship quality is affected strongly
by stability from the 1998
extended family quality. In addition, 2003 extended family
relationships are negatively
influenced by 2(X)3 arguments about money. In contrast to the
negative influence it exerts on
close families, 2O()3 unemployment exerts a positive influence
on extended families. Perhaps
this is because the unemployed have more time to socialize with
their extended families,
whereas among the employed, these relationships would be
severely neglected in competition
with close family and work responsibilities. Next, earlier 1998
reports of the problem of
"valuing income more than the family" negatively influence
2(X)3 extended family relationships.
Finally, reports of "different personality" problems in 1998
positively impact extended family
relationships in 2003.
Table 4
Variable
OXvS Regression Results for Extended Family Relationships (T
values)
1993 1998 2003

Adjusted R-Squared
Q l - A g e
Q3-Sex: Female
Previous Quality of Extended Family Relationships
Contemporary Household Income
Contemporary Frequency of Extended Family Gatherings
Contemporary Problem: Moving Away
Contemporary Problem: "Working too much"
Contemporary Problem: Arguments about money
Contemporary Problem: Unemployment
Contemporary Problem: Substance Abuse
Contemporary Problem: Value income more than family
Contemporary Problem: Value friends more than family
Contemporary Problem: Different Personalities
Contemporary Problem: Other (non-economic)
Contemporary Problem: Aging/Health
Contemporary Problem: Rarely Meet/Different Cities
Contemporary Problem: Household related
Contemporary Problem: Other (economic)
Previous Household Income
Previous Frequency of Extended Family Gatherings
Previous Problem: Moving Away
Previous Problem: "Working too much"
Previous Problem: Arguments about money
Previous Problem: Unemployment
Previous Problem: Substance Abuse
Previous Problem: Value income more than family
Previous Problem: Value friends more than family
Previous Problem: Different Personalities
Previous Problem: Other (non-economic)
Previous Problem: Aging/Health
Previous Problem: Rarely Meet/Different Cities
Previous Problem: Household related
Previous Problem: Other (economic)

.223
0.579
-0.215
4.226***
-0.337
0.049
-1.608
-0.339
0.269
n.a.
n.a.
-2.117*
0.422
-1.657
-2.603*
0.578
-1.147
n.a.
n.a.
0.743
0543
1.424-
0.496
m.c.
n.a.
n.a.
1.181
-1.098
1.170
1.001
n.a.

1.437
n.a.
n.a.
.482
-1.640
-1.671
6.918***
0.990
0.520
-0.039
-0.525
-2.001*
0.694
n.a.
0.761
-0.811
-1.261
-0.600
n.a.
-.556
n.a.
n.a.
-1.071
0.490
1.149
-0.131
-0.289
n.a.
n.a.

0.337
-1.081
1.524
m.c.
n.a.
.845
n.a.
n.a.
.548
0.009
1.795
6.143***
0.616
0.930
-0.697
0.525
-2.647**
2.587*
-1.037
1.140
1.280
-1.812
-1.391
n.a.
-0.248
n.a.
n.a.
-1.283
0.050
-l.(>16

-0.118
1.007
0.955
n.a.
-2 724**
-0.107
2.255*
0.417
n.a.
0.368
n.a.
n.a.
*p<.05. **p<.01. ***p<.OOI
n.a. These items were deleted from the calculation because they
were either constants or lacked correlatioas
with the dependent variable
m.c. Deleted because of multi-collinearity with same variable of
later lime period.
THEORETICALDISCUSSION
To summarize, according to the respondents, there was a clear
statistically significant (see
again Table 2) deterioration in happiness with relati onships,
relationship quality with spouses,
children, and extended family, and in the frequencies of close
familie.s eating together and

extended family gatherings when comparing 1983 and 2003.
Regarding the specific transition
periods, each ofthe above variables, except the frequency of
eating meals together, shows
significant decline in the 10 years between 1983 and 1993.
During the next "step," only
happiness with relationships, relationship quality with siblings,
and the frequency of extended
family gatherings .show statistically significant decline between
1993 and 1998. Over the last
transition period, from 1998 to 2003, none of these relationship
or cohesion variables shows
significant change. What stands out from this part of the
analysis, aside from the notable
1983 to 1998 deterioration, is also that none of these variables
ever shows a significant
increase. Even after the steep drop in most relationship
variables between 1983 and 1998,
none of these recovers between 1998 and 2003. It is worth
noting as well that changes within
the close family were more abrupt at the beginning of the
transformation, but leveled off in
the last five years, while extended family relationships
experienced a more gradual decline
throughout the 20-year period, although the pace ofthe decline
may have abated after 1998.
Family Stress and Individualization
Regarding the third interest of this article, to theoretically
frame these changes, there are two
• major approaches that are relevant here to assess the interplay
between family change and
economic change. First, and corresponding to St. Petersburg's
experience of economic
shock in the l990's, the family stress perspective suggests that

economic stress causes
family stress. Second, and more in relation to the transition
from a centrally-planned to a
free-market economic structure, an individualization hypothesis
would predict that families
also experience a more permanent type of change independent
from economic crisis, hut
dependent instead upon the effect of structural economic
transformation on people's values.
These two perspectives differ across two dimensions.
Temporally, relationship deterioration
due to family stress should be temporary and reverse itself
during economic recovery, while
if relationship deterioration is due to individualization, it
should be more permanent (barring
no retreat from the free-market economic model). Second, these
two perspectives have
different causal argumentations. Family stress points to
economic conditions of scarcity as
the precursor for relationship decline, while individualization
blames cultural change due to
a shift in the economic structure.
Typical of the family stress perspective are studies that show,
for example how family economic
hardship negatively affects both marital relations (Conger et al.,
1994) and parenting behaviors
(Simons et al., 1994), which in tum damages children's self
efficacy, self-esteem, and overall
adjustment (Conger and Eider, 1994; Whitbeck etal., 1991;
Whitbeck etal., 1997). Asaresult,
families experiencing stress are also more likely to have
children that are depressed and
abusing alcohol or drugs (Scheer and Unger, 1998). Another
example of use of this
perspective can be seen in a study on family stress during the

post-Soviet Czech
transformation (Hraba et al., 2000). This study demonstrated
how a family's perceived
economic pressure caused increased marital instability. Families
grew instable as a direct
reaction to economic crisis. The important implication here is
that economic hardship leads
to family troubles in a manner which eould be reversible if the
family's economic situation
would turn around.
The second theoretical approach to the family-economy
question, based upon modernization
and individualization argumentation, supposes that family
change is bound together with
historical structural-economic changes. In their recent review of
contemporary Polish families,
Omacka and Szezepaniak-Wiecha (2005), highlight the need for
such a maero-level approach,
one that is sensitive to changes brought on by modernization,
such a.s industrialization,
urbanization, and technological developments, when analyzing
family change. One facet of
this modernization that is especially relevant to families in
post-Soviet countries is the
reintroduction of free-market capitalism, which theori.sts have
long alleged may have profound
effects on social relations. For example, Karl Polanyi (1944)
noted how gain and profit-
oriented markets are alien and unnatural to human relations, and
the evolution of these

within industrial and capitalist development in the 19'̂ century,
which resulted in the
replacement of socially-embedded markets, had a profound
effect on the social world. Similar
argumentation can be found with Habermas" (1989) reasoning
wherein rationalization, for
example, in the form of cost-benefit analyses introduced and
required by the capitalist
economy, affects social relations by 'colonizing' them with alien
concepts; rational thinking
seeps into the intimate social sphere with potentially destructive
effects, such as in the form
of profit-oriented thinking within the family. Simmel (1995)
makes similar arguments within
the Philosophy of Money, when he suggests how the
abstractions brought about by money
amount to impersonalization when extended into the relational
sphere. The core argument is
that there may be a fundamental mismatch between sociality and
calculative economic thinking;
material culture in this way would imply an individualization,
or desocialization of its subjects.
In contrast to family stress, this individualization approach
highlights that, due to the capitalist
free-market economic structure, certain changes occur within
individuals - such as an increase
in material aspirations or the use of cost-benefit analyses in
everyday life - which amount to
a lower valuation of the family, and these changes may occur
independently from economic
hardship. Therefore, such changes would be only reversible if
the economic structure were
changed.
Next, in order to speculate on what some of the root causes of
the perceived changes in

family relationships may be. the data are .scrutinized for clues
of both family stress and
individualization affecting these relationships.
Close- versus Extended-Family Relationships
The regression results illustrate a need to differentiate between
close and extended family
relationship quality, because these are seemingly affected by
different types of pressures.
Extended family relationships tend to be affected by
materialism-related problems such as
"valuing income more than family," and "arguments about
money," which both do not
significantly affect close relationships. In contrast, close
relationships are uniquely affected
by family cohesion and substance abuse variables. In addition,
both close and extended
relationships are affected by everyday sorts of problems such as
different personalities,
other (non-economic) problems, and by unemployment,
although the negative effects of
unemployment show up only within the close family within this
data.
Close families appear to have experienced an abrupt change
between 1983 and 1993, as
evidenced by the lack of continuity between the close
relationship qualities of those time
periods and the surprising result that families that ate together
often in 1983 were less likely
to have strong relationships in 1993 even though the 1993

frequency of eating together had
a positive effect on close family relationships. This may be
indicative of the upheaval and
family stress resulting from the initial onset of the shock
therapy, offset once families had
adapted to the new environment and reestablished some degree
of stability. By 1998, the
effect of unemployment on close family relationships also
becomes apparent, an effect that
remains in 2003. In addition, substance abuse begins to exert a
negative influence on close
relationships in 2003. To recap, I suggest that this combination
of the above-mentioned
rupture in close relationship quality and the appearance of the
significant negative influences
of unemployment and substance abu.se demonstrate that close
relationships in St. Petersburg
were, if the respondents' reports are accurate, indeed negatively
impacted by family stress
due to the insecure economic environment.
In contrast, extended family relationships do not exhibit the
same symptoms of abrupt stress
as close relationships do at the beginning of the transformation.
Instead, extended
relationships appear to have changed according to a gradual and
persistent mechanism more
consistent with individualization and materialistic value-change
argumentation. For example,
the most persistent negative influence upon extended family
relationships appears to come
from the extended family member's "valuing income more than
family" and from "arguments
about money" between extended fami ly members, for one or
both of these problems negatively
affect extended family relationships in 1993, 1998, and 2003.

These problems may arise from
the increasing materialism of the individual family members and
their increasing instrumental
or exploitative use of their extended families for economic gain.
Perhaps the counter-intuitive
finding that unemployment positively affects extended family
relationships in 2003 can be
explained by the same type of argument. If unemployment
might, to some extent, signal a
person's lack of adjustment to the new economic structure, then
would the unemployed be
therefore less influenced by materialist culture and thus less
likely to "value income more
than the family," to argue with their relatives about money, or
to use socializing time instead
for more materialistic ends? Furthermore, the fact that extended
family relationships appear
to continue to weaken, and are still affected in 2003 by
arguments about money despite the
economic recovery, suggests that this trend may represent an
enduring value shift due to
individualizing pressures.
For what reasons might close families exhibit more symptoms
of stress and extended families
more symptoms of individualization? The answer probably lies
in the different levels of
intimacy of these two groups. In times of economic stress, the
immediate family may be
forced into a 'survival mode," meaning that limited time and
resources lead to the contraction
of the intimate social network and a focus on the close family.
In tum, the extended family
either becomes unimportant or an instrumentalized - and
therefore a 'colonized' - network,
one of the tnany sources of weak ties used to identify and

procure scarce resources. Of
course, in times of economic hardship, individualization
pressures also affect the close
family, but these may not be so apparent amid more pressing
existential concems.
More generally, there is other evidence in the data that would
argue that a family stress
model alone is not sufficient. First, close relationships,
extended relationships, relationship
happiness, and family cohesion variables each decline until
1998, but then do not recover
despite a significant economic recovery in St. Petersburg
between 1998 and 2003. Furthermore,
it is notable that, in the six regressions run, income never
correlates with a relationship
dependent variable. If these relationships are changing because
of economic .stress, should
not the effect of income differences also be visible, at least
during the troubled years of 1993
or 1998? This point is not made in order to try to invalidate a
model based on economic
stress, but only to highlight that some changes in families —
such as individualization, value
changes, or rationalization — may be occurring independently
from micro-level economic
success or failure. On the other hand, as shown earlier, it is
clear that stress-related variables,
such as unemployment and substance abuse, have also played a
major role for these
respondents.

IMPUCATIONS
To change geai^ a hit, it may be fruitful to analyze, aside from
the causes of family deterioration,
its consequences. What would be the implications of a decline
in the quality of family
relationships, if it indeed has occurred? If one is grounded in
notions of intimate social
integration and social control theory (see Hirschi, 2002), one
would expect the decay of
social bonds to lead a loss of informal social control over
individuals, and therefore a rise in
anomie and forms of deviance. With this in mind, recall
Malysheva's (1992) prediction that
the demoralization of Russian society and families would lead
to a steep rise in social anarchy.
Unfortunately, her prediction was accurate, and one need not
search for long in order to fmd
plenty of evidence for social anarchy in St. Petersburg, Russia.
Crime rates nearly doubled
during the first few years of shock therapy in St. Petersburg
between 1991 and 1993. Even
more troubling, the murder rate in the city more than tripled in
only three years, from 1990 to
1993. In the same three-year time period, St. Petersburg rates of
accidental deaths, mainly
due to alcohol-related accidents, rose by almost 250 percent
(Committee of Economic
Development and Committee of Finances of St. Petersburg,
1995; Committee of Government
Statistics of St. Petersburg, 2002). Meanwhile, Russia's suicide
rate is three times the world
average. In 1991, therate was 26.5 per 100,000, but in 1994, in
the aftermath of shock therapy,
it rose to 42.1 per 100,000. After improving slightly in the next

several years, Russian suicide
rates spiked again in 1999, following the ruble devaluation
(Reich, 2003). Prostitution likewise
has seen a boom in Russia since the collapse of communism
(Ingwerson. 1996). The Russian
teen pregnancy rate jumped as well, by 54 percent, between
1980 and 1995 (Singh and
Darroch, 2000). In addition to these other social ills, rates of
infant and adult mortality,
divorce, drug use, and alcoholism have also increased (Iarskaia-
Smimova, 1996).
During the 199O's, each of these forms of social anarchy rose
sharply at the same time as
family relationships appear to have suffered the most. This
conjunction between economic
change, deteriorating families, and social anarchy is no
accident. Within such an environment
— characterized by the weakening of authentically 'social'
norms and values — the
accompaniment of rising suicide, alcoholism, and crime rates
should not be surprising.
Incidentally, this study's respondents reported whether or not
their children have engaged
in delinquent activities, and the correlations between this
reported juvenile delinquency and
the quality ofthe respondents' 2003, 1998, and 1993
relationships with their children are
respectively -.444 {p<.001), -.281 {p<.Ol), and -.427 (p<.001).
This evidence may support what

is claimed here; the study of changing family relationships
during times of rapid social
change is critical because of potential informal social control
consequences.
CONCLUSION
While the circumstantial evidence, both in the form of
retrospective reports and corresponding
'social ills,' appears formidable, it is still far from conclusive.
Therefore, much research is
needed to conclude whether, and why, family relationships have
decayed. This particular
study has attempted to connect perceptions of deteriorating
family relationships directly to
the period of economic change in St. Petersburg. The intent is
not to imply that other cultural
factors, such as changing religious and pohtical values,
evolving gender roles, or shifts in
family functions, have had no influence. Rather these factors,
which were out of empirical
reach of this particular questionnaire, would be expected to
mediate the economic-
psychological mechanisms suggested here.
In addition, similar research conducted with a probability
sampling technique may verify and
help to generalize this study's results. This is imperative since
the perceived deteriorations
in relationship quality, happiness, and family cohesion reported
in St. Petersburg are disturbing
if they are indeed accurate. If they are correct, might
friendships and other social relationships
also have weakened, and in other locations in the post-socialist
world, as well?

Furthermore, the use of longitudinal data would be a sure-fire
way to measure relationship
changes without the doubts often raised with retrospective
studies. However, because of
the shortage of such data in most transition countries, especially
of data that cover the 'lost
years' before and after the transition, retrospective data,
whether qualitative or quantitative,
are sometimes all that are available.
Finally, concerning the theoretieal framing of radical social
change in general, our knowledge
of the effects — such as individualization, value change, and
rationalization — of changing
economic structures within transition societies is definitely
empirically lacking when compared
to the many studies focusing on economic conditions in the
tradition of the family stress
model. Indeed the differing causes of deterioration suggested
here for relationships within
the close family and the extended family could be one direction
in which to test the interplay
between such cultural-historical and immediate eeonomic
factors in affecting family change
at different levels of intimacy.
REI^ERENCES
Committee of Economic Development and Committee of
Finances of St. Petersburg (1995). Behind
the Lines of Figures.
Comminee of Government Statistics of St. Petersburg (2002).
Sankt-Peterburg Statisticheskyi
Ezhegodnik 2002 (St. Petersburg Statistical Yearbook 2002).

ETLA Solid Investment Group (2000). St. Petersburg in the
199O's: December 2000 Biannual Review.
Conger. R. D. and G. H. J. Elder (1994). Family Stress and
Adaptation; Reviewing the Evidence. In
R. D. Conger and G. H. i. Elder (Eds.), Families in Troubled
Times: Adapting to Change in Rural
America (pp. 255-268). New York: De Gruyter.
Conger, R. D.. et al. (1994). Economic Stress and Marital
Relations. In R. D. Conger and G. H. J.
Elder (Eds.), Famiiies in Troubied Times: Adapting to Change
in Rural Atnerica (pp. 187-203). New'
York; De Gruyter.
Freeland. C. (2000). Sale of the Century. New York: Crown
Publishers.
Habermas. J. (1989). Tendencies Toward Juridification. In The
Theory of Communicative Action;
Volume 2: Lifeworld and System, A Critique of Functionalist
Reason (pp.356-373). Boston: Beacon
Press.
Herrmann. D. J (1994). The Validity of Retrospective Reports
as a Function of the Directness of
Retrieval Processes, In N. Schwarz and S. Sudman (Eds.),
Autobiographical Memory and the Validity
of Retrospective Reports (pp.21 -37). New York: Springer-
Verlag.
Hirschi, T. (2002). Causes of Delinquency. London: Transaction

Publishers.
Hopper, P. (2003). Rebuilding Communities in an Age of
Individualism. Aldershot, England: Ashgate.
Hraba. J. et al. (2000). Family Stress During the Czech
Transfonnation. Joumal of Marriage and
Family, 62(2). 51^-5^1.
Iarskaia-Smimova, E. (1996). Comparison of Russian Family
Life Then and Now. Social Development
Issues, 18(1), 53-65.
Ingwerson, M, (1996). Eastern Europe's New Money Culture
Rips Famiiies Apart. Christian Science
Monitor. 88(202), 10,2c.
Intemationai Bank of St. Petersburg (2002). Annual Report: Key
Macroeeonomic trends in 2002.
Koliandre. A. (2001, December 24). A decade of economic
reform. BBC News Online. Retrieved 17
July, 2006 from
http://news.bbc.co.Uk/l/hi/business/1727305.stm
Komozin. A. (1993). Shokovaya ekonomika: Tendentsii
obshchestvennogo mneniya naselenyi Rosii
(Shock economics: Tendencies of social opinion of the Russian
population). Sotsiologicheskie
issledovaniya, II., 10-17.
Malysheva, M. (1992). Some Thoughts on the Soviet Family. In
J. Riordan (Ed.), Soviet Social Reality
in the Mirror of Glasnost. London: St. Martin's Press.
Meier, A. (1999, February 2). The Crash: The Russian Market

from Start to Crash. PBS Online.
Retrieved 17 July, 2006 from
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/crash/etc/russia
.html
Ornacka. K. and I. Szczepaniak-Wiecha (2005). The
Contemporary Family in Poland: New Trends
and Phenomena. Joumal of Family and Economic Issues, 26(2).
195-224.
Polanyi, K. (1944), The Great Transformation. New York:
Rinehart & Company, Inc.
Polozhevets, G (2001, December 1). Russian Reforms; 10 Years
On, Interview with the executive
directorof the Expert Institute, Andrei Neshchadin. Johnson s
Russia List. Retrieved 17 July, 2006
from http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/5575-l2.cfm
Reich, R. (2003, July 11). Suicide Stats Have Jumped For
Russians [Electronicl. The St. Petersburg
Times.
Scheer, S. D. and D. G. Unger(1998). Russian Adolescents in
the Era of Emergent Democracy: The
Role of Family Environment in Substance Use and Depression.
Family Relations. 47(3), 297-303.
Shlapentokh. V. (1991). The Soviet Family in the Period of the
Decay of Socialism. Joumal of
Cotnparative Family Studies, 22(2), 267-280.
Simmel,G (1995). The Philosophy of Money. D.Frisby (Ed.).
New York: Routledge.

Simons, R. L., et al. (1994). Economic Pressure and Harsh
Parenting. In R. D. Conger and G. H. J.
Elder (Eds.), Families in Troubled Times: Adapting to Change
in Rural Ameriea (pp.207-222). New
York: De Gmyter
Singh, S. and J. E. Darroch {2(X)0). Adolescent Pregnancy and
Childbearing: Levels and Trends in
Developed Countries. Family Planning Perspectives, 32{i), 14-
23.
Stiglitz. J. E. (2002). Globalization and Its Discontents. New
Delhi: Penguin Books.
Whitbeck, L. B et al. (1991). Family Economic Hardship,
Parental Support, and Adolescent Self-
Esteem. Social Psychology Quarterly, 54(4), 353-363.
Whitbeck, L. B et al. (1997). The Effects of Parents' Working
Conditions and Family Economic
Hardship on Parenting Behaviors and Children's Self-Efficacy.
Social Psychology Quarterly, 60(4),
291-303.

COURSE CODE BCO121-BCN1974 COURSE NAME ETHICS IN BUSINESS Ta

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from CruzIbarra161

More from CruzIbarra161 (20)

COURSE CODE BCO121-BCN1974 COURSE NAME ETHICS IN BUSINESS Ta