Society
Russians Continue to See State as Guarantor of Social ‘Security and Certainty’
March 5, 2026
A new survey by the independent Russian think tank Platforma finds that Russians see the state as the key driver of positive social change and see limited opportunities for themselves to affect social policy, which makes them feel like “passive observers.”
The Platforma Social Design Center and the online pollster OnIn conducted a study examining recent changes in social policy. The research is relevant as both the state and business have paid greater attention to the social sphere since the war started in 2022. The key findings of the study are that the state remains, in the eyes of Russians, the dominant and effectively monopolistic actor in the social sphere, while large businesses are beginning to be seen as the second-most important actor. Meanwhile, small and medium-sized firms are viewed as having little influence. Overall, the broad population tends to feel like “passive observers of their own social environment.” The mechanisms and nature of government decision-making remain largely opaque, fostering a sense of powerlessness and alienation, as well as the perception that individual Russians are unable to affect social policy through personal or collective initiatives.
To conduct the study, a nationwide online survey was carried out in the fourth quarter of last year, with the data analyzed in January 2026. It included 1,400 respondents, aged 18 and older, and was structured according to sociodemographic characteristics, type of locality and federal district.
To conduct the study, a nationwide online survey was carried out in the fourth quarter of last year, with the data analyzed in January 2026. It included 1,400 respondents, aged 18 and older, and was structured according to sociodemographic characteristics, type of locality and federal district.
Nick Sorockin / Unsplash
‘Guarantee of security and certainty’
The first survey question asked respondents whether they agreed with the statement: “Russia is a country with a developed social policy, with active state involvement in the sphere.” An overwhelming majority agreed. Respondents were also asked to rate the statement on a 10-point scale. The largest share (39%) gave it a score of 10, while 18% rated it 8 and 13% rated it 9. Overall, 87% of respondents agreed with the statement about the state’s active role in social policy, giving it a score between 5 and 10 points, while only 13% disagreed.
The researchers note that the state is seen as the key actor in matters of social support, infrastructure management, media regulation and the provision of basic services. Many Russians perceive the state’s strong presence in the social sphere as a “guarantee of security and certainty” against the backdrop of “economic instability and foreign political tensions.”
Visible and invisible changes
When asked in which areas positive social changes had been most noticeable over the past three years, respondents most often pointed to areas they could “see and feel every day.” The top three were the urban environment (52%), sports facilities (47%) and cultural/educational initiatives (35%).
Only 29% of respondents noted positive changes in health care, while 17% pointed to environmental improvements. Higher education ranked last at 14%. Ten percent of Russians could not answer the question.
Society responds most acutely to changes that are immediately visible. A sense of “concrete and quick” results is created, for example, by the construction of new sports facilities, renovated parks and playgrounds. Russians tend to focus on such changes because they are “immediately tangible, demonstrable and easy to perceive.”
At the same time, Russians are far less likely to expect deep systemic changes in areas such as education and the economy – again reflecting a preference for “sharp and visually noticeable” things. Education, health care and support for vulnerable social groups are “significantly and systemically lagging behind,” the study finds. “They are more difficult to imagine as a single, clear thing, and transforming them requires lengthy and not always visible reforms.”
Overall, the researchers argue that a significant gap exists between systemic development of human capital – which is “invisible” – and outwardly visible improvements, which create a sense of comfort.
The first survey question asked respondents whether they agreed with the statement: “Russia is a country with a developed social policy, with active state involvement in the sphere.” An overwhelming majority agreed. Respondents were also asked to rate the statement on a 10-point scale. The largest share (39%) gave it a score of 10, while 18% rated it 8 and 13% rated it 9. Overall, 87% of respondents agreed with the statement about the state’s active role in social policy, giving it a score between 5 and 10 points, while only 13% disagreed.
The researchers note that the state is seen as the key actor in matters of social support, infrastructure management, media regulation and the provision of basic services. Many Russians perceive the state’s strong presence in the social sphere as a “guarantee of security and certainty” against the backdrop of “economic instability and foreign political tensions.”
Visible and invisible changes
When asked in which areas positive social changes had been most noticeable over the past three years, respondents most often pointed to areas they could “see and feel every day.” The top three were the urban environment (52%), sports facilities (47%) and cultural/educational initiatives (35%).
Only 29% of respondents noted positive changes in health care, while 17% pointed to environmental improvements. Higher education ranked last at 14%. Ten percent of Russians could not answer the question.
Society responds most acutely to changes that are immediately visible. A sense of “concrete and quick” results is created, for example, by the construction of new sports facilities, renovated parks and playgrounds. Russians tend to focus on such changes because they are “immediately tangible, demonstrable and easy to perceive.”
At the same time, Russians are far less likely to expect deep systemic changes in areas such as education and the economy – again reflecting a preference for “sharp and visually noticeable” things. Education, health care and support for vulnerable social groups are “significantly and systemically lagging behind,” the study finds. “They are more difficult to imagine as a single, clear thing, and transforming them requires lengthy and not always visible reforms.”
Overall, the researchers argue that a significant gap exists between systemic development of human capital – which is “invisible” – and outwardly visible improvements, which create a sense of comfort.
Yury Manulenko / Unsplash
‘Passive observers’ of social policy
When asked how responsibility for social well-being is actually distributed, respondents again placed the state in the leading role. More than half said their social well-being depends primarily on federal, regional and municipal authorities. Federal authorities received the highest result, with 54% of respondents saying their well-being depends on the federal government “to the greatest extent.” Regional authorities followed at 51% and municipal authorities at 50%.
Far behind were the general public (21%) and large enterprises (20%), followed by public associations and initiative groups (14%) and small and medium-sized businesses (9%).
The researchers note that people feel “completely dependent on the authorities” across several major social issues, including health care, transportation, economic opportunities and public services. Indeed, they see themselves and their local communities as “passive observers of their own social environment.”
In addition, 57% of respondents said that regional and municipal authorities are the primary source of positive change in the social sphere, as it is they who make the key decisions on improving courtyards, developing transportation and social facilities, and repairing roads. Only a third of respondents considered large businesses to be the primary source of positive change, while only a quarter identified NGOs and charitable foundations as such. Just a tenth of respondents named small and medium-sized businesses or the media and bloggers, respectively.
The researchers point out that respondents have a poor understanding of the different levels of government. They see little difference between regional and municipal authorities, while the federal government is perceived as the key player. In addition, large businesses are gradually coming to be seen as the second-most important actor in the social sphere, which, the study posits, is the “cumulative effect” of large businesses’ social programs and their broader influence on the regions where they operate.
Volunteering and charity
For Russians, the most powerful and effective available social-policy tools are volunteering and charity. People see the results of these efforts because they often appear “visibly and locally.” Other, institutionalized mechanisms for influencing the social environment enjoy less trust. Respondents are less likely to see their impact or consider them meaningful.
Overall, Russians’ view of the relationship between society, the state and business suggests that people feel they lack sufficient tools to participate in social change. Amid this broader sense of powerlessness, respondents prefer simple, localized forms of direct action where results are quickly visible. The researchers stress the gap between “formal mechanisms of interaction and people’s real experiences.” Russians, the study says, do not perceive “the work of structures that should ensure long-term dialogue and real solutions.”
Anxieties
The researchers also asked respondents to name up to seven social issues that concern them most. The top three were “quality and accessibility of health care” (69%), “improvement in the urban environment, including courtyards, and the condition of roads” (62%) and “the labor market/opportunities to make money and have a career” (58%).
Researchers note that “these indicators directly affect quality of life and the sense of social stability.” People are increasingly anxious about their health and perceive a significant shortage of jobs and career prospects, which erodes their sense of economic certainty.
Russians are also concerned about the cleanliness of their cities, with 50% citing this as a major concern, as well as the environment (47%) and public transportation and infrastructure (45%). Other important concerns include problems in education (34%), a lack of green spaces and parks (26%) and entertainment (23%). Among the least significant concerns are the availability and variety of goods and services (20%), public life represented by events and festivals (19%) and sports infrastructure (18%).
While “facade” improvements such as beautification campaigns and renovations are viewed positively, fundamental areas that directly affect Russians’ basic quality of life continue to generate social anxieties.
Demand for participation in social initiatives
In the final question of the survey, the researchers attempted to measure people’s readiness to participate in social initiatives. Only 11% thought that demand for such participation is high across Russia, citing examples of self-organization. Twenty-seven percent said it is low, attributing this to general passivity and mistrust, while 12% could not answer. Half of the respondents gauged Russians’ readiness to participate in social initiatives as moderate, saying Russians would participate if external support were present.
Overall, the study suggests that Russian society is largely alienated from the processes of meaningful social change. The state makes the decisions, while the mechanisms producing those decisions remain opaque, and many developments people view as positive are largely superficial. According to the researchers, because the state dominates such fundamental areas as health care and the labor market, people feel they have no ability to influence them or the general social sphere, which fosters social anxiety and dissatisfaction.
When asked how responsibility for social well-being is actually distributed, respondents again placed the state in the leading role. More than half said their social well-being depends primarily on federal, regional and municipal authorities. Federal authorities received the highest result, with 54% of respondents saying their well-being depends on the federal government “to the greatest extent.” Regional authorities followed at 51% and municipal authorities at 50%.
Far behind were the general public (21%) and large enterprises (20%), followed by public associations and initiative groups (14%) and small and medium-sized businesses (9%).
The researchers note that people feel “completely dependent on the authorities” across several major social issues, including health care, transportation, economic opportunities and public services. Indeed, they see themselves and their local communities as “passive observers of their own social environment.”
In addition, 57% of respondents said that regional and municipal authorities are the primary source of positive change in the social sphere, as it is they who make the key decisions on improving courtyards, developing transportation and social facilities, and repairing roads. Only a third of respondents considered large businesses to be the primary source of positive change, while only a quarter identified NGOs and charitable foundations as such. Just a tenth of respondents named small and medium-sized businesses or the media and bloggers, respectively.
The researchers point out that respondents have a poor understanding of the different levels of government. They see little difference between regional and municipal authorities, while the federal government is perceived as the key player. In addition, large businesses are gradually coming to be seen as the second-most important actor in the social sphere, which, the study posits, is the “cumulative effect” of large businesses’ social programs and their broader influence on the regions where they operate.
Volunteering and charity
For Russians, the most powerful and effective available social-policy tools are volunteering and charity. People see the results of these efforts because they often appear “visibly and locally.” Other, institutionalized mechanisms for influencing the social environment enjoy less trust. Respondents are less likely to see their impact or consider them meaningful.
Overall, Russians’ view of the relationship between society, the state and business suggests that people feel they lack sufficient tools to participate in social change. Amid this broader sense of powerlessness, respondents prefer simple, localized forms of direct action where results are quickly visible. The researchers stress the gap between “formal mechanisms of interaction and people’s real experiences.” Russians, the study says, do not perceive “the work of structures that should ensure long-term dialogue and real solutions.”
Anxieties
The researchers also asked respondents to name up to seven social issues that concern them most. The top three were “quality and accessibility of health care” (69%), “improvement in the urban environment, including courtyards, and the condition of roads” (62%) and “the labor market/opportunities to make money and have a career” (58%).
Researchers note that “these indicators directly affect quality of life and the sense of social stability.” People are increasingly anxious about their health and perceive a significant shortage of jobs and career prospects, which erodes their sense of economic certainty.
Russians are also concerned about the cleanliness of their cities, with 50% citing this as a major concern, as well as the environment (47%) and public transportation and infrastructure (45%). Other important concerns include problems in education (34%), a lack of green spaces and parks (26%) and entertainment (23%). Among the least significant concerns are the availability and variety of goods and services (20%), public life represented by events and festivals (19%) and sports infrastructure (18%).
While “facade” improvements such as beautification campaigns and renovations are viewed positively, fundamental areas that directly affect Russians’ basic quality of life continue to generate social anxieties.
Demand for participation in social initiatives
In the final question of the survey, the researchers attempted to measure people’s readiness to participate in social initiatives. Only 11% thought that demand for such participation is high across Russia, citing examples of self-organization. Twenty-seven percent said it is low, attributing this to general passivity and mistrust, while 12% could not answer. Half of the respondents gauged Russians’ readiness to participate in social initiatives as moderate, saying Russians would participate if external support were present.
Overall, the study suggests that Russian society is largely alienated from the processes of meaningful social change. The state makes the decisions, while the mechanisms producing those decisions remain opaque, and many developments people view as positive are largely superficial. According to the researchers, because the state dominates such fundamental areas as health care and the labor market, people feel they have no ability to influence them or the general social sphere, which fosters social anxiety and dissatisfaction.
Share this article
Read More
