At the present stage of economic activity development, the problem of ensuring economic security is characterized by new aspects of both practical and theoretical content, which is associated with the institutional transformations of the Russian economy, its consistent transition to a new innovative development path. Strengthening the innovative component in the economic development of Russia necessitates a joint solution of not only economic, but also especially significant social problems by the state, business, non-profit organizations and the public. The emergence of new trends, models and methods that determine the institutional support of economic modernization, creates the need for scientific justification of modern problems of economic security. Currently, a search is underway for new conceptual approaches to the formation of methods and mechanisms that can protect the economic interests of the state, which is reflected in the strategy of social and economic development of Russia. The article reflects the institutional features of ensuring the economic security of the state in conditions of instability and the emergence of new threats associated with the lack of civil society in Russia, underdeveloped activities of non-profit organizations and public institutions. As a result, it was concluded that the formation of an atmosphere of trust, adherence to common values and norms, developed social ties and relations should become an indispensable condition for the growth of civic activity, which in turn will ensure the economic security and sustainable development of Russian society in the technological, social, political, cultural and historical perspective.
Keywords: Civil societyeconomic securitysocial economywelfare state
Globalization, internationalization and liberalization of economic life have largely predetermined the categorical designation of the concept of “economic security”, the essence of which is reduced to a holistic system of measures on the part of citizens, society, and all mankind to repel and prevent dangers and threats that can provoke the degradation of economic, social, and political life, and also undermine the main driving force of society – human potential. This concept includes, in addition to the economic component, reliable security at the macro and micro levels of public interests, the comprehensive development of human creative abilities, increasing the effectiveness of socialization and vital systems, shaping a lifestyle with an orientation toward enduring humanistic values, maintaining high moral standards, and motivating socially useful activities.
In this understanding, the object of economic security is not only the business environment, but also the social sphere, which is a social structure (a combination of classes, social groups and layers, individuals, social institutions); social relations and people's needs (preservation and continuation of life, maintaining and strengthening health, ensuring an adequate level of well-being and general development of the individual); socialization system and social infrastructure (education, training, trade, services, etc.).
The imperatives of economic security led to the search for new ways of both economic and socio-political support. The traditional, “wild” capitalism in the social sphere was very far from the ideals of human existence. The socially oriented planned economy of the socialist states also did not stand the test of time, often acting on the heads and hearts of individuals. More effective in providing real social guarantees and social justice was the social market economy of Western democracies.
The social market economy is fundamentally different not only from the socialist, but also from the capitalist economy of the era of free competition. It represents an independent economic model, the “third way” between capitalism and socialism (Gerhold, Bartl, & Haake, 2017). The cornerstones of a social market economy are private property, legal guarantees, an effective management system, the use of economic incentives, and the existence of regulatory bodies. A market economy does not automatically generate wealth. However, it creates the necessary prerequisites for this, contributing to the desire to succeed, the development of creative principles among both entrepreneurs and wage workers. On the whole, the system of social market economy makes much more demands than the socialist planned economy: hard work, innovation, flexibility, constant comparison with the level of labor productivity achieved by competitors.
A social market economy rests on confidence in the regulatory role of the market: supply and demand, free pricing and competition determine the market position. Social market economy relies on free enterprise, free choice of consumer goods, on labor, on the ability of entrepreneurs and trade unions to develop, during free negotiations, tariff agreements on the level of remuneration that correspond to the current market situation (the so-called tariff autonomy) (Kunze, 2012). The state or its bureaucratic structures cannot better understand the needs of participants in market relations than entrepreneurs and consumers themselves. At the same time, the social market economy does not relieve the state of responsibility.
The 1993 Constitution of the Russian Federation defined new principles for the interaction between the individual, society and the state. The seventh article defines the main directions of state activity, the implementation of which will allow Russia to be recognized as a truly social state. Articles 8, 9 are devoted to the economic foundations of the constitutional system of Russia.
The social state is a product of a social management technique. Nowadays, it becomes obvious that without the development and consistent implementation of a set of measures of a sociocultural order, the creation of a fundamentally different system of managing the economy of our country, its structural adjustment, Russia's entry to the world level of competitiveness is impossible.
The real contradiction of the sociocultural sphere lies in the fact that its resources have so far been largely excluded from the reform mechanisms, while the significance of this factor in updating federal and regional structures is becoming more and more relevant.
Disclosure of the above stated problems necessitates the search for answers to the following questions:
What is a modern social state? What are the basic conditions for its formation and development?
What approaches to the interpretation of the category of “civil society” currently exist in domestic and foreign practice? What are their distinguishing features, what are the advantages and disadvantages?
How can a hierarchical political structure, acting as an instrument for optimizing social relations, turn into power for the sake of power, and what consequences does this inevitably lead to?
What are the main tasks and ways to strengthen economic security facing Russian society in the near future?
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the article is to investigate the institutional features of ensuring the economic security of the state in the context of the transition to an innovative path of development, instability in the world economy and the emergence of new challenges and threats associated with the insufficient formation of civil society in Russia.
In the world research literature, there are two main approaches to the interpretation of the category “civil society”:
1) A political science approach linking the existence of such a society with a state system of a democratic type that protects the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual, as a result of which a traditional society evolves into a civil one.
2) A sociological approach that considers civil society as a community of individuals who are ready to defend their interests, rights and freedoms, and are able to unite into associations that are multiple in their goals and form, but independent of the state. Two features of this approach should be distinguished:
by virtue of its independence, civil society to some extent opposes the state, since, in its desire to protect the interests of citizens, it does not allow the authorities to abuse their right to legitimate violence;
organizations representing civil society cannot be attributed to political entities, since they do not set as their goal the struggle for power.
Despite the obvious differences, both of these approaches are legitimate and generally complement each other. The first contains in its basis the relationship of the political form of government with the type of social structure. Moreover, the rule of law and civil society together form a single social-legal continuum. The second approach emphasizes the isolation of civil society from the state-political system, paying attention to its inherent processes, their dynamics and content. It considers civil society in the framework of the triad “state-power-population”, emphasizing the independence of each of its components, and emphasizing the oppositional role of society in the event of a shift in power structures towards authoritarian rule.
Different approaches are observed not only in interpretations, but also regarding the composition of civil society. Some authors, considering it in a narrow sense, identify civil society with the concept of the “third sector”, assuming that it consists exclusively of a dense network of non-profit organizations (NPO) (Giddens, 1984; Grigoreva & Garifova, 2015). Others distinguish between them (Hyden, 1997; Yasin, 2007). Still others are convinced of blurring the boundaries between civil society and the state (Chen & Fang, 2013), while a number of authors, on the contrary, assess civil society as a normative model that is not related to social realities (Artige, Dedry, & Pestieau, 2014).
The author’s approach is based on the belief that civil society is a multidimensional and self-organizing system of naturally occurring social relations between individuals. The “third sector” is located within civil society as its secondary subsystem (the family institution is included in the primary subsystem). The relations that make up the intrastructural ties of civil society include family-related, inter-ethnic, commodity-money, religious, educational, professional and amateur, linking people with ties of personal needs and interests. In the value aspect, civil society includes economic, human rights and cultural components: means of production to satisfy social needs; the totality of communities protecting the rights of their members or the interests of citizens who are not members of this community; values of freedom and morality supported by individual private individuals. Such a society implies the existence of alternative media, openness of power and, what is very important, a developed middle class, ready to defend their rights from any form of state arbitrariness. It is the middle class that is the economic basis of civil society and forms its social base, as a space of horizontal ties between equal property rights of citizens.
The research is based on a transdisciplinary methodological paradigm, which allows us to establish logical connections not only between specific scientific disciplines (economics, law, sociology), but also to explore the phenomenon of diversity in society, economics and science as a whole. The interdisciplinary methodological strategy is concretized through the following scientific methods: system analysis, socio-legal, comparative, axiological.
An indispensable condition for the social state establishment is a civil society formation. It is possible to stabilize the society, to take it away from the explosive features and degradation, by developing and proposing to the society a focused and balanced social policy, both at the federal and regional levels; by including an adequate implementation mechanism for them; having found material, financial and intellectual resources for this as a priority, as well as having formed a full-fledged civil society.
Numerous studies show that neither in ancient times, nor in the medieval period, nor at present, a single concept, a single approach to the definition of the concept of “civil society” was developed (Häkli, 2018). Such a situation testifies, on the one hand, to the complexity and multidimensionality of the concept itself, and, on the other hand, reflects the incompleteness of cognition process of this phenomenon (Kolesnikova & Ryabova, 2016).
The idea that there are no borders between civil society and the state, in our opinion, is far from reality. Civil society supplements and balances the established vertical power structures with the formation and development of horizontal social ties represented by the activities of non-profit organizations and public institutions. The thesis of blurring the boundaries between civil society and the state is also unlawful because under any modern regimes (liberal, democratic, authoritarian, etc.), the state as a special economic entity is inevitably above members of society.
It should be noted that the hierarchy of the political structure necessary to maintain public law and order can act not only as an instrument for optimizing social relations, but also turn into power for the sake of power. In such cases, it loses some of its functions related to the regulation of the social sphere, and begins to work on its own support, often violating the rights of citizens. In order to avoid such situations, civil society should influence the behavior of the government and control it through the voluntary communities included in it, i.e. the “third sector” not only satisfies the diverse needs of citizens, but also protects their rights and interests in cases where the authorities allow arbitrariness in relation to them. Therefore, we can conclude that civil society, along with state power, is a legitimate subject of law, exercising control over the policies of government and administration at all levels.
Thus, civil society should be considered as a special type of social structure, based on a developed system of civil law and legislatively ensured economic freedom of the individual – the subject of civil law relations.
Civil society is interested in the dynamic development of the country, in the effective functioning of economic and social institutions. Demanding criticism and active support from society provide an increasing quality of the entire system of institutions. The first condition for improving this quality is the development of ways to coordinate the opinions of various public groups, the development of institutional means to achieve public interests. The main challenge for all state and public institutions is to see in civic activism an incentive to increase the efficiency of their activities and give them new dynamics (Ilyin, Morev, & Povarova, 2018).
The current situation in Russia is characterized by presence of civil society, however, it is not yet strong enough due to its traditional state suppression (Stewart & Dollbaum, 2017). Therefore, its presence does not mean that it plays the same role in the creation, preservation and development of democratic institutions as in countries with developed economies.
In conclusion, it should be noted that the formation of an atmosphere of trust, adherence to common values and norms, developed social ties and relations, in other words, social capital, is a universal result of the activities of the “third sector” and the general growth of civic activity in modern Russia. Without social capital, it is impossible to ensure the security and sustainable development of society, neither in the economic, nor in the technological, nor in the cultural and historical perspective. At the same time, Russian civil society structures so far have poorly implemented “horizontal” social control. Strengthening civic activism is not directly reflected in the growth of the non-profit sector: Russians prefer to participate in informal civic initiatives, and volunteer actions, as a rule, are also organized not by NPOs, but by various initiative groups.
Among the main tasks related to strengthening economic security through the development of Russian civil society in the coming years are: increasing the professionalism of NPOs, which will allow them to participate fully in the provision of social services, environmental protection and education, as well as in other areas of public life; internal structuring of the non-profit sector, self-determination of NPOs and civic activists in relation to the opportunities provided by socially useful services; consolidation of the non-profit sector, development of professional associations and unions by fields of activity, etc. The implementation of these areas will ultimately contribute to the growth of public authority of non-profit organizations in connection with state measures to support the “third sector” and the formation of a developed civil society in Russia.
- Artige, L., Dedry, A., & Pestieau, P. (2014). Social security and economic integration. Economics Letters, 123(3), 318-322. DOI:
- Chen, H. J., & Fang, I. H. (2013). Migration, social security, and economic growth. Economic Modelling, 32, 386-399. DOI:
- Gerhold, L., Bartl, G., & Haake, N. (2017). Security culture 2030. How security experts assess the future state of privatization, surveillance, security technologies and risk awareness in Germany. Futures, 87, 50-64. DOI:
- Giddens, W. (1984). The Constitution of Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Grigoreva, E., & Garifova, L. (2015). The Economic Security of the State: The Institutional Aspect. Procedia Economics and Finance, 24, 266-273. DOI:
- Häkli, J. (2018). pThe subject of citizenship – Can there be a posthuman civil society? Political Geography, 67, 166-175. DOI:
- Hyden, G. (1997). Civil Society, Social Capital and Development. Studies in Comparative, 32(1), 18-22.
- Ilyin, V. A., Morev, M. V., & Povarova, A. I. (2018). The social state in Russia: problems and prospects. Vologda: VolNTs RAS. [in Russ.].
- Kolesnikova, N. A., & Ryabova, E. L. (2016). Civil Society in Modern Russia. Moscow: International Publishing Center “Ethnosocium”. [in Russ.].
- Kunze, L. (2012). Funded social security and economic growth. Economics Letters, 115(2), 180-183. DOI:
- Stewart, S., & Dollbaum, J. M. (2017). Civil society development in Russia and Ukraine: Diverging paths. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 50(3), 207-220. DOI: 10.1016/j.postcomstud. 2017.08.001
- Yasin, E. (2007). Modernization and society. Issues of Economics, 5, 20. [in Russ.].
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
About this article
31 December 2019
Print ISBN (optional)
Industry, industrial studies, project management, sustainability, business, innovation
Cite this article as:
Doroshenko, T. N., & Kivarina*, M. V. (2019). Economic Security In The System Of Social Coordinates. In I. O. Petrovna (Ed.), Project Management in the Regions of Russia, vol 77. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences (pp. 949-955). Future Academy. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2019.12.05.116