In the Russian literature, there are almost no works devoted to specific sociological studies of Russian workers of the late XIX-early XX centuries. There are several reasons for this. The main issue that was in the center of attention of the Russian public for a long time was peasant. There is a huge literature devoted to the Russian land community, including many thousands of articles, monographs, and reports. Within the framework of agrarian sociology and zemstvo statistics, which grew up in relation to the peasant question again, an original research direction was formed related to the study of peasant budgets. Not only in our country, but also abroad, the names of F. A. Shcherbina, A. Peshekhonov, and F. F. Peshekhonov have become famous. Erisman, A. I. Chuprov, and N. A. Kablukov.

Much more modest against this background are the achievements of industrial sociology at the beginning of the XX century. If we take into account that the" working question " was raised before the scientific community not earlier than the 90-ies of the XIX century, when agrarian sociology, including the communal tradition, had solid experience behind it, then we could not expect a serious scientific breakthrough from the growing strength of industrial sociology at the beginning of the XX century. Nevertheless, the study of working budgets should be considered one of the key and most advanced enclaves of scientific sociology in the first quarter of the 20th century. Such names as G. Naumov, S. Prokopovich, M. Davidovich, A. Stopani, I. Vovsi, G. Pollyak are practically unknown to the current generation, but at that time they represented the vanguard of Russian socio-economic thought.

An analysis of the specialized literature (1-7) showed that the detailed analysis of pre-revolutionary budgets is not given due attention. At best, these are several pages within separate monographs. An exception, perhaps, is the article by V. Ovsyannikov, published in the distant 20s in two issues of the journal" Voprosy Truda " [8]. In it, the author not only analyzes the data obtained in the course of pre-revolutionary budget research, but also makes an attempt to compare them. Among modern works, it is worth noting the works of V. S. Sycheva, where, despite the predominant orientation towards peasant budgets, a significant place is given to the consideration of pre-revolutionary budgets of workers [9]. The reason for the silence of an important topic lies in the inaccessibility of observation units.

Back in the 1920s, V. Ovsyannikov wrote that " the results of pre-war research have long been a bibliographic rarity. Sometimes it is not possible to get them even in the largest libraries" (8, p. 50). Another reason was that the authors were interested in describing the empirical part of budget research, but did not try to create analytical works. A. Chayanov also spoke about this problem, noting that " despite such a wide distribution of budget research, nevertheless, so far in our literature there is not a single consolidated guide to the methodology of budget work. Individual methodological notes that are found in various budget publications, some polemical articles, and our old consolidated book on the history of budget research-this is the material that the reader can find in our articles.

The article was prepared with the support of RGNF, project No. 98-03-04338.

page 121

Sample surveys of family budgets (1907-1913)

libraries, preparing for the production of a budget study" (3, p. 4). In addition to the fact that data on workers ' budgets were difficult to access for scientists, they were also extremely small, of course, compared to peasant budgets.

One of the historians and methodologist of budget research at that time, V. Ilyinsky, pointed out that "in pre-revolutionary Russia, peasant budgets were more fortunate, and this is perhaps natural for a country with an 80% peasant population and a very young industrial capitalism... The practice of budget surveys of peasant farms in Russian zemstvos leaves behind the practice of this type of survey abroad, both in terms of the volume of surveys and their scientific justification " (2, p. 11). Budget studies of peasants were already so widespread by that time that regular congresses, conferences and meetings were held in the country devoted to methodological, methodological and practical issues of their organization. In this mass, workers ' budgets were lost. If the question of their differences and specifics was raised, it was decided rather without proper justification and broad discussion. It is enough to refer to the monograph by A. Chayanov (3), the author of which did not even consider it necessary to single out books and articles on working budgets from the general list of literature devoted to budget research.

Another reason for the small number of budget surveys of workers at the beginning of the century is their very nature. Workers ' budgets, like all private-sector budgets, are not a simple statistical fact that can be easily registered. Any private economic budget is a phenomenon that develops over a long period of time, over the course of a year or even several years. In addition to them, there are expenses that are made on the farm only once in a lifetime. It is necessary to keep a constant, regular and accurate record of all budget items from day to day, for at least one year. Current records of receipts and expenses require time, considerable labor, and material costs. In addition, the maintenance of household income and expense books implies, if not some intelligence, then at least literacy of a working family. In short, there were many objective and subjective reasons, arising both from the historical situation and from the very nature of budgets, which made it difficult to conduct budget research of the working class.

One more significant factor should be added - the lack of a scientific and statistical institution in Russia that would be charged with collecting budget information and allocate the necessary funds for full, comprehensive and accurate recording of working and living conditions of workers.

Obviously, the revolution of 1905-1907 should be considered as the reason for launching a series of budget studies of workers. S. Solntsev drew attention to the regularity of the appearance of budget surveys of the population immediately or during social unrest at the beginning of the century. In his monograph, he noted that "whenever the ' working question', which gradually and imperceptibly turned into a 'social question', made itself felt especially sharply, whenever social relations became more acute and disturbed the normal

page 122

the course of social life, and with it the social consciousness - both theorists and politicians-hastened to study the social situation of the working classes and to look into the mysterious realm of how and how the worker lives, how and what he eats, how and how he satisfies his needs for a "decent human" existence" (11).

If we talk about the entire array of workers ' budgets, only six surveys were carried out before the First World War (see Tables) by S. Prokopovich, M. Davidovich, I. Shaposhnikov, A. Stopani, V. Andreev, V. Goritsky, and G. Naumov (10; 12-16). It should be noted that the best of them was recognized as a study conducted by A. Stopani. It was the largest (sample of 2,339 people), with the most fully developed tools (80 questions), and most importantly - representative: it accounted for 6% of the total. It is not without reason that in Russia A. Stopani's work was awarded two honorary diplomas at the All-Russian Giant Exhibition in 1913 in St. Petersburg. One diploma was awarded for the research itself, the other for the methodology of its development.

In the pre-revolutionary budget literature, considerable attention was paid to the question of the method of collecting information. Almost every researcher explains in detail why they chose this or that method of conducting research. In our opinion, the most accurate method was considered to be the method of filling out the income and expense books, in which the workers themselves daily entered their income and expenses during the year. But it was labor-intensive and required high literacy from respondents. And most importantly, it did not provide mass material even in Germany, where the level of culture of workers was much higher than in Russia.

Having abandoned the method of receipt and expense books, Russian scientists used the questionnaire method or the "self-filling" method. The workers were required to answer the questionnaire questions, noting income and expenses for a long period (month, year). As it turned out, it was also not always applicable in Russia. In its pure form, it was used only by S. Prokopovich, whose respondents were more literate than the "average" workers of St. Petersburg. But even in such a relatively favorable situation, S. Prokopovich had to face the problem of large culling of the obtained material. At the beginning of 1908, the questionnaire was printed in 6,000 copies and distributed to members of trade unions, workers 'self-education societies, schools for adult workers, and workers' consumer societies. Of these, 1016 documents were returned. However, only 632 responses were suitable for processing, while the rest were considered unsatisfactory and not subject to development.

The main drawback of this questionnaire is the form of questions, in which respondents were required to give exact figures indicating the average expenses for a month or a year. M. Davidovich calls them "subjective averages". They are "the most unreliable element for statistical operations". Thus, where researchers covered the average or, as it was customary to call it at that time, the "typical" worker, the material was collected through special registrars, and the data obtained was verified by documentation. The expense was checked through "pick - up books", and the income was checked through "settlement books". In contrast to the questionnaire of the XII Department of the Russian Technical Society. The Textile Union Commission has developed its own questionnaire. The main thing in it was a different methodological approach to the survey: if the old questionnaire asked respondents about their average annual expenses, then the new one extracted these averages, i.e. gave objective data instead of subjective ones (10, p. 6). Although in both cases the same method was used: special questionnaires went to the workers ' homes and by interviewing them, they made up their family budgets.

Unlike others, I. Shaposhnikov himself acted as a registrar. The scientist worked in particularly favorable conditions, as he was a factory doctor and personally knew all the respondents. He's writing: "The material collected under such conditions provides sufficient guarantees of its accuracy, especially in comparison with the questionnaire method" (13, p.3).

A. Stopani conducted research with the help of registrars by directly interviewing workers. The data was collected for a year. The program allowed collecting reliable and complete data describing the material and cultural standard of living of the Baku proletariat. In the preface to the book, Stopani wrote that "...registrars were required to avoid any averages as much as possible, especially when accounting for such large expenditure items as rent, clothing, food, etc., when accounting for small expenditure items, for example, for the needs of various types of hygiene, movement (local), etc., it was recommended to proceed from a specific expense for the last month, making certain amendments to the received annual amount of expenses, depending on the respondent's indication" [14, p. 23]. The survey program consisted of more than 80 questions. The answers to these questions described the family composition, employment (profession) and education of its members, temporary unemployment, the connection of a family or a single worker with the village, housing conditions, and purchase costs

page 123

clothing, shoes, furniture, household and cultural items, cinema and theater visits, transportation costs. Families were interviewed in particular detail about their food consumption.

G. Naumov conducted the last budget study before the war. It is based on the results of a questionnaire survey of Kiev workers. The author immediately makes a reservation that one of the tasks of his work is the desire to show the admissibility and suitability of "the method of subjective testimony of workers about their budget, if it is used under certain conditions" (16, p. 1). G. Naumov agrees that the possibilities of the subjective method are limited, but it is impossible to replace it with a more adequate one opportunities for the reasons we mentioned above.

Statistical scientists set themselves the task: as a result of the study, to get a portrait of the average ("typical") worker. At the beginning of the century, this turned out to be a difficult and overwhelming task. Not all the workers agreed to answer the questions, but only the most conscientious ones. Hence the overrepresentation of trade union members in research. The most conscientious workers were often more literate than the average. It was also quite natural that the respondents also received higher wages, and the family composition was significantly higher than the average. In general, it turned out that the typical worker surveyed was higher in at least one of the parameters than the average in the general population.

An analysis of the expenditure structure of a" typical " worker shows that in any extraordinary life situation (requiring payment), the budget became scarce. Let's look at the sample of M. Davidovich and I. Shaposhnikov, which mostly characterized the typical worker in terms of average earnings. For Dr. I. Shaposhnikov, these were provincial workers, for whom the researcher notes the following:: "Almost all expenditure is spent on maintaining physical existence, which is 98%" (13, p. 8). M. Davidovich, as mentioned above, focused on the study of family budgets, and its indicators are typical for the average family worker in the capital. Excluding from our calculation a group of single people and workers with a family in the village because of their small number, we got a figure for meeting the physiological needs of 88.62 % of the total income. These two indicators, of course, indicate that the budget can be normally reduced under favorable life circumstances. It is also an indicator of a higher standard of living for workers in the capital.

Thus, it turns out that there is practically no fundamental difference in the distribution of the budget between average workers and those receiving "higher" wages. The first ones in the province had 1.5-2% of their income left to meet non - physiological needs, while the capital ones had 11-12% of their income. Those receiving a higher income had 16-20% left. Most likely, there is a fundamental difference between the average metropolitan worker and the average provincial worker, and not between the average metropolitan worker and the higher-paid worker in St. Petersburg. The consumption structure of the latter did not differ much from each other. Indeed, if we follow the logic, then with the growth of income, the structure of expenditure should have changed steadily in the direction of a constant reduction in % of allocated funds for meeting physiological needs. In St. Petersburg, this trend can be traced, but only slightly.

list of literature

1. Kabo P. M. Consumption of the urban population of Russia (according to budget and sample studies). Moscow, 1918.

2. Ilyinsky V. Budget of workers of the USSR in 1922-1926. Moscow-L., 1928.

3. Chayanov L. Budgetary research. Istoriya i metody [History and Methods], Moscow, 1929.

4. Strumilin S. G. Statistiko-ekonomicheskie ocherki [Statistical and economic essays], Moscow, 1958.

5. Matyukha I. Ya. Statistics of population budgets, Moscow, 1967.

6. Gozulov A. I. Ocherki po istorii otechestvennoi statistiki [Essays on the history of national statistics], Moscow, 1972.

7. Strumilin S. G. The subsistence minimum and earnings of unskilled workers in Petrograd in 1914-1918. 1918. N 2-3.

8. Ovsyannikov V. Pre-war budgets of Russian workers. 1925. N 9-10.

9. Sycheva V. S. The role of budget research in studying the problem of poverty (historical and sociological analysis): Author's abstract of the dissertation, Moscow, 1998.

page 124

10. Davidovich M. Petersburg Textile Worker, Moscow, 1919.

11. Solntsev S. Working budgets in connection with the theory of "impoverishment". Socio-economic essay based on budget statistics, Moscow, 1923.

12. Prokopovich S. N. Budgets of Petersburg workers, St. Petersburg, 1909.

13. Shaposhnikov IM. Budget of workers of one of the factories of Bogorodsky uyezd in connection with nutrition and morbidity. Moscow, 1910.

14. Stopani A. Neftepromyshlennyy rabochy i ego budget [Oil industry worker and his budget]. Baku, 1924.

15. Andreev V. A. Working budgets for the study of 1911. Materials for evaluation, etc. Vol. 1. Issue III. Kostroma, 1918.

16. Naumov G. Budgets of workers in Kiev. According to the questionnaire made in 1913 Kiev, 1914.

page 125

Permanent link to this publication: