Skip to main content
SFeDu
of.211, Gorgoko St., 88 
Rostov-on-Don
Russia
344002
+7 (863) 250-59-54
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
te@sfedu.ru

Russians’ subjective well-being: Barriers and contours of social agency


TERRA ECONOMICUS, Vol. 24, No 3

Citation: Sushko P. (2026). Russians’ subjective well-being: Barriers and contours of social agency. Terra Economicus 24(3), 69–87. DOI: 10.18522/2073-6606-2026-24-3-69-87

Based on empirical data from the Institute of Sociology of FCTAS RAS (October 2025, N = 2000), this paper investigates the specifics of Russians’ subjective well-being in relation to the manifestations and barriers of individual social agency. Applying the authors’ Subjective Well-Being Index (SWB Index) based on respondents’ evaluations of 16 life domains, the research delineates five groups ranging from subjective ill-being to social success. An analysis of the interconnections among intragroup structures, socio-demographic profiles, the realization of life goals, and prevalent everyday problems allows for the conceptualization of a hierarchical model of social agency. This model develops sequentially from basic integration into the micro-social environment toward the autonomous construction of a life trajectory. The findings demonstrate that as the SWB Index increases, the spectrum of positive assessments expands consistently from primary social capital, including family and close relations, to material, professional, and recreational opportunities. This structural pattern correlates with an increase in the number of realized goals over the past three years and a corresponding extension of planning horizons among the most well-off groups. Furthermore, the research reveals a qualitative shift in the nature of life barriers, where the multiple problems restricting the least well-off groups are gradually replaced by time deficits and a high intensity of goal realization as subjective well-being improves. Consequently, social recognition within primary networks may function as the universal foundation of social agency, while the stabilization of the material situation provides basic control over external circumstances and facilitates situational adaptation. Against this background, the predominance of positive assessments regarding access to non-material resources indicates an individual’s transition to a proactive form of social agency, enabling them not merely to adapt to a changing reality but to actively transform it in accordance with their goals. Ultimately, the identified empirical patterns reflect the complex hierarchical nature of social agency, setting a conceptual vector for the operationalization of a multilevel explanatory model in future research.

Keywords: Russian society; subjective well-being; social inequality; social stratification; quality of life; social agency; self-realization
JEL codes: 24, I31, D63, J24, D10


References:
  • Almakaeva, A., Nastina, E., Doguzov, A. (2025). Dynamics of happiness and life satisfaction under conditions of exogenous shocks. Sociological Journal 31(2), 29–50 (in Russian). EDN: MPMQGO
  • Bauman, Z. (2008). Liquid Modernity. Moscow: Piter Publ. (in Russian).
  • Beck, U. (2000). Risk Society. Towards a New Modernity. Moscow: Progress-Traditsiya Publ. (in Russian).
  • Bourdieu, P. (2002). Forms of capital. Journal of Economic Sociology 3(5), 60–74 (in Russian). EDN: OYUVRD
  • Giddens, A. (2005). The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Moscow: Akademicheskiy proekt Publ. (in Russian).
  • Gorshkov, M., Sedova, N. (2015). “Self-sufficient” Russians and their life priorities. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya (12), 4–16 (in Russian). EDN: VGMFJB
  • Gorshkov, M., Tikhonova, N. (eds.). (2025). Russian Society and the Challenges of the Time. Book 8. Moscow: Ves mir Publ. (in Russian).
  • Zubok, Yu. (2020). Youth: Life strategies in a new reality. Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes 3, 4–12 (in Russian). DOI: 10.14515/monitoring.2020.3.1688
  • Latova, N. (2017). Dynamics and factors of life satisfaction of Russians (1997–2017). Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya (12), 65–78 (in Russian). EDN: ZWLWEF
  • Mareeva, S. (2024). Monetary and non-monetary inequalities in modern Russian society: Dynamics of the recent decade. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya (9), 3–16 (in Russian). EDN: QXFCVB
  • Parsons, T. (2002). On Social Systems. Moscow: Akademicheskiy proekt Publ. (in Russian)].
  • Sen, A. (2004). Development as Freedom. Moscow: Novoe Izdatelstvo Publ. (in Russian).
  • Sushko, P. (2023). Dynamics of indicators of subjective social well-being of Russians (2003–2023). Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya (12), 59–71 (in Russian). EDN: CHZYGR
  • Sushko, P. (2025). Structure of the mass strata of the Russian population by level of subjective well-being. Economic and Social Changes: Facts, Trends, Forecast 18(4), 143–163 (in Russian). EDN: RPFWJE
  • Tikhonova, N. (2019). “Negative stabilization” and factors of population welfare dynamics in post-crisis Russia. Sociological Journal 25(1), 27–47 (in Russian). EDN: YETRTV
  • Toshchenko, Zh. (2020). Trauma Society: between Evolution and Revolution. Moscow: Ves mir Publ. (in Russian). EDN: QLXXDD
  • Yadov, V. (ed.) (2013). Self-Regulation and Forecasting of Social Behavior of Individual: Dispositional Concept. Moscow: TsSPiM – Center for Social Forecasting and Marketing (in Russian)EDN: SWYNQU
  • Alkire, S. (2002). Dimensions of human development. World Development 30(2), 181–205. DOI: 10.1016/S0305-750X(01)00109-7
  • Alkire, S. (2005). Subjective quantitative studies of human agency. Social Indicators Research 74(1), 217–260. DOI: 10.1007/s11205-005-6525-0
  • Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. N.Y.: W.H. Freeman.
  • Crocker, D. (2008). Ethics of global development: Agency, capability, and deliberative democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Diener, E., Suh, E., Lucas, R., Smith, H. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin 125(2), 276–302. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.276
  • Easterlin, R. (1974). Does economic growth improve the human lot? Some empirical evidence. In: David, P., Reder, M. (eds.) Nations and Households in Economic Growth: Essays in Honor of Moses Abramovitz (pp. 89–125). N.Y., London: Academic Press.
  • Emerson, R. (1841). Self-reliance. In: Emerson, R. Essays (35–73). Boston: James Munroe and Company.
  • Emirbayer, M., Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology 103(4), 962–1023.
  • Graham, C., Nikolova, M. (2015). Bentham or Aristotle in the development process? An empirical investigation of capabilities and subjective well-being. World Development 68, 163–179. DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.11.018
  • Hitlin, S., Elder, G. (2007). Time, self, and the curiously abstract concept of agency. Sociological Theory 25(2), 170–191. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9558.2007.0030
  • Ryff, C. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57(6), 1069–1081. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069
  • Sen, A. (1985). Well-being, agency and freedom: The Dewey lectures 1984. The Journal of Philosophy 82(4), 169–221. DOI: 10.2307/2026184
  • Sorensen, A. (2000). Toward a sounder basis for class analysis. American Journal of Sociology 105(6), 1523–1558. DOI: 10.1086/210463
  • ul Haq, M. (1995). The Reflections on Human Development. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Welzel, C. (2013). Freedom Rising. Human Empowerment and the Quest for Emancipation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Publisher: Southern Federal University
ISSN: 2073-6606












  • Hits: 126