Conclusion

Abstract

The initial hypotheses, laid out at the beginning of this study, posited that social welfare has a reciprocal relationship with democratization. The Russian case shows that social welfare, mediated by the discourses that politicians used to explain and predict social change, played a causal role in effecting first democratization in the 1990s, and de-democratization after 2000. The Russian case also illustrates that while authoritarian leaders may be tempted to use populist social reforms to stay in power, social welfare has an inherently democratic logic. The concept of modern social welfare, with its emphasis on the state’s responsibility towards a community of equal citizens, fits poorly with any system of government that makes power the exclusive preserve of one group. Social welfare crises can weaken and de-legitimize a regime, but a new regime must take care to address social problems once in power, and to follow through on any promises to expand citizen participation into social welfare. Unless social policymakers consult with the citizenry in some sort of inclusive process, social policy will not reflect the views of the citizens, will not reflect deliberation and compromise, and will not respond adequately to social change.