Social capital of the urban community: trust, solidarity, responsibility

Introduction. The city plays an important role in the development of the society, greatly influencing people’s lifestyle, creating opportunities for contacts, forming networks of relations. According to some researchers, “a city, interwoven the social fabric of the society, reflects and expresses its development” [1, 3]. Urban communities, absorbing a third of country’s population, represent the most common form of territorial association in the Russian conditions. A modern city is a very complex formation in all respects. It combines two types of space: physical and social. The physical component (buildings, monuments, streets, squares and parks) is complemented by the social component in the form of human activity and social interaction. Here the “social reality” is revealed, which E. Durkheim spoke of and which consists of many invisible connections. Those which, according to Durkheim, also form the space of positions [2].

A city as a socio-cultural space is a system of information and communication frameworks for social activity of individuals. They are embodied in a variety of symbolic products of socio-cultural practice [3]. At the same time, the city is bonded and divided by a complex social network of various kinds of connections and relations. The importance of the city is enhanced by the fact that within its borders there is formation and accumulation of social capital, which is largely facilitated by cohabitation of its inhabitants in a compact area, their involvement in a variety of joint activities.

Theoretical framework of analysis. The study of the phenomenon of social capital forming within the boundaries of an urban community is based on significant theoretical framework. It is possible to speak about the formation of the concept which has deep theoretical roots. Its origins can be traced back to the theoretical constructs of the nineteenth century.

The concept uses many basic provisions of the theory of capital by K. Marx, I. Fisher, G. Becker [4, 5, 6].

Within the framework of postmodernism the concept was further expanded. P. Bourdieu defines capital as accumulated labor which gives an opportunity to appropriate social energy. Bourdieu enriched the concept with new characteristics and other forms. They are the economic, cultural, and social capital [7, p. 60]. Each form has its specific features. Thus, material capital is tangible and is embodied in material objects; human capital is manifested in the individual’s achievements obtained through their health, intelligence, skills, and abilities. Bourdieu connects this form with the human body [7, pp. 60–61]. In contrast to these forms, social capital is intangible as it has a significantly different origin. It is generated by the relations the actor enters during the communication process. These are relations of mutual acquaintance and recognition formed by joining the group which “provides its members with support in the form of collective capital, “reputation”, allowing them to receive credits in every possible way” [7, p. 66]. And this is its fundamental difference from material and human capital. Another difference refers to ownership of capital. Of all forms of capital, only social capital is treated as a public good since it cannot be the property of a subject using it. Being formed in the networks of relations, social capital belongs to all participants of these networks.

Social capital, which includes social relations, mutual exchange and mutual assistance, endows a person with a certain social position (status) in the emerging social structure. Its significance lies in the fact that it provides access to the resources available to the members of the community surrounding the individual, and an opportunity to use them. Bourdieu believed that social capital is symbolic and that it can be identified through membership in any group. In fact, this is nothing but a kind of social practice. Analyzing the identified forms, their ability to flow from one to the other, Bourdieu described capital as a dynamic resource [8, pp. 101–102].

Further in-depth analysis of social capital is contained in the works by J. Coleman who put forward the idea that the relations creating social capital of an individual are based on trust [9]. This is the main difference between social and other types of capital. During the development of the concept the researchers faced the issue of the role of public associations of citizens. Any joint activity requires certain arrangement. Studying public associations and the results of their activities, R. Putnam, one of the influential researchers of social capital viewed them as an effective way of forming social capital. They ensure inclusion in public life, expand contacts and ties, contribute to the development and strengthening of interaction standards. According to Putnam’s definition, social capital is “connections among individuals, social networks and standards of reciprocity and trust that arise from them” [10, p. 544]. Considering the life of the community through the activities of associations created by individuals, R. Putnam managed to find out the value of network interaction.

Association activity focuses the actors’ attention on joint actions that contribute to the awareness of the unity of interests. It is solidarity that underlies social interaction and ensures the coordination of individual interaction and social order. It serves as a prerequisite for any collective action, appears as the leading integrative factor [11, p. 226]. Trust between members of the group generates solidarity, which in turn contributes to the strengthening of standards and values in the community and serves as a framework for collective action. The interpretation of solidarity established in science sees it as “a connection, the merger of individuals into a united group or team”, as an “emergent property of groups which promotes social coordination and social order and is a prerequisite for any non-spontaneous collective action” [12, p. 14588]. In our opinion, solidarity can be classified as one of the most important factors contributing to the formation of social capital a community, manifested in the willingness of individuals to act together.

The development of the concept is associated with the expansion of its range of problems. The solution of theoretical issues about the nature, forms, types, sources of formation, and measurement methods helped researchers focus their interest on specific spaces of its concentration. The urban community served as one of such spaces. The concept of social capital considers the problems of ensuring the sustainability of the urban community amid natural and social disasters [13], urban poverty and inclusion of residents of urban slums [14, 15], the problems of ethnic communities [16], etc. The studies of social capital in terms of territorial features of its formation [17], geographical features of the emergence of network interaction in different urban areas [18] are of particular interest. A number of studies of social capital are devoted to analyzing the situation in specific cities [19, 20].

The theoretical approaches to studying social capital of a territory and a city are contained in works by A. Caragliu, C. Del Boro, and P. Nijkamp [21]. In particular, they noted that the competitiveness of the city depends on its social capital, which is manifested in the ability of the urban community to adapt to changes in the environment and produce innovation. S. Zielenbach noted the effect of social capital manifested in the fact that individuals, demonstrating a higher level of trust more actively involved in activities that contribute to the development of the territory, and not only bring individual benefits [22].

Studies of social capital in the urban context began to attract the attention of domestic scientists. For example, M.V. Kurbatov, S.N. Levin, and E.N. Kagan analyzed the influence of social capital on business development and formation of business networks in Kemerovo [23]. E.L. Anoshkina studied the situation with social capital in Perm and Yekaterinburg [24]. She defined social capital of a city as its ability to develop and implement the strategy of spatial development, attracting internal and external resources to its territory [25]. The great role is assigned to decision-making centers. Thus, the development of the concept helps talk about the social capital of a city (urban community).

Further analysis is based on the following provisions. First, social capital is embodied in subjects’ social relations, rather than in the subjects or objects as such. Second, the basis for strong social relations is trust, which contributes to the creation of common values and standards as their embodiment. Third, social capital, being manifested in social relations, reflects the structure of relations, making it possible to analyze the social structure of the society. Four, inclusion in the network of relations at a certain social level helps an actor (individual or community) use the resources of this network to achieve their goals. Five, social capital contributes to individuals’ unification into a group, which ensures social coordination and social order. These represent the functional characteristics of social capital. Six, the implementation of social capital is observed through identifying the area of responsibility for the state of affairs in the individuals’ place of residence.

Finally, we define social capital as the presence of networks of social relations based on trust and characterized by common standards and values, and the level of people’s involvement in them. Second, the external effects and results generated by social interaction within these networks and associations based on trust, common standards and values are useful for the society and social groups (in the current context – for a city) [26].

The research hypothesis is as follows. The different cultural, historical and economic conditions in which a certain community exists can influence the state and degree of manifestation of basic structural characteristics of its social capital.

Analysis of empirical data. The study of the social capital of urban communities is of practical importance as it can provide answers to questions about the observed differences in their socio-economic development. Consider these differences and analyze the available data on two major cities of the Vologda oblast – Vologda and Cherepovets. The peculiarity of the territorial arrangement of region’s population is its bicentric nature [27]. The concentration of the population in two largest cities and their suburbs has led to space polarization. Vologda appears as the administrative and cultural “capital” of the region, Cherepovets – as its industrial center. The current situation can be considered unique in many ways, which creates promising opportunities for sociological research in the region.

Vologda and Cherepovets, being within the borders of one region, have much in common, for example, in terms of characteristics such as population, employment, transport communications etc. Yet they have more differences. The most significant of them are cultural, historical and economic ones [28, 29].

Cherepovets expanded faster in the Soviet era, Vologda strengthened its development during the perestroika period. Cherepovets was developing on a new basis, the model of

Table 1. Population development in the cities of Vologda and Cherepovets during 1939–2016 (thousand people)

Year	Vologda	Cherepovets
1939	95.0	32.0
1959	139.1	92.4
1970	177.8	188.3
1979	236.5	265.9
1989	282.8	310.4
1999	301.0	324.0
2009	286.2	309.0
2015	311.2	318.1
2016	320.7	318.5
Source: Vologdastat statistics service data.

Table 2. Main results of socio-economic development of Vologda and Cherepovets in 2016

Indicator Vologda Cherepovets Average annual population, thousand people 320 701 318 536 Shipped own goods, performed works and services, billion RUB 55.2 424.9 Capital investment, billion RUB 11.7 46.1 Average monthly nominal wage, RUB 33 722 43 653 Average number of employees (excluding external part-time workers), people 86 449 85 994 Tax and non-tax budget revenues, mln RUB 2780.0 3040.5 Sources: report on the performance of the mayor and the mayor’s office for 2016. Cherepovets. 2017. Available at: https://mayor.cherinfo. ru/; Socio-economic development of a municipal unit “Vologda city” for 2016. Available at: industrial cities of the Soviet period: ferrous metallurgy in combination with coke chemistry became the core of the functional structure of Cherepovets [30]. Construction of a large iron and steel enterprise amid the shortage of labor resources led to large-scale migration processes (Tab. 1).

In economic terms, the cities under review also differ quite significantly (Tab. 2) . According to the total volume of industrial production of the region Cherepovets ranks first: its share is 70%, Vologda ranks second with the share of 10%.

Most of the citizens in Cherepovets are engaged in production and construction. The structure of employment in Vologda is different, since it is there that educational institutions, regional and city medical institutions are concentrated. A significant share is made up of employees of management structures at different levels. In 2011, 3,400 people were employed in the regional government [31].

To some extent, the “capital” status of the city and its residents is currently supported by the development of new brands. The most popular projects were “Vologda – the New Year capital of Russia (Russian North)”, “Vologda – the lace capital of Russia”. The project “Vologda – the cultural capital of the Russian North” is aimed at solving this problem, the implementation of which is included in the relevant program. In fact, the cities shared their functions: administrative and cultural functions are concentrated in Vologda, economic ones – in Cherepovets.

Social capital of the urban community, its formed type, is most clearly manifested in population’s awareness of the degree of responsibility for the state of affairs in the city, in the formed trust circles; this is facilitated by involvement in networking. This hypothesis is partially confirmed by the studies conducted by L. Polishchuk, R. Menyashev [32] where they characterize Cherepovets as a city with an open civil culture, a city with great development potential.

For deeper studying the influence of territorial peculiarities on social capital formation we conducted comparative analysis of the results of a sociological study covering the population of Vologda and Cherepovets. The survey was conducted in June, 2017. The representative quota sampling comprised 600 people with the total population of 639,000 people. Statistical error on quota characteristics does not exceed 4%. The applied survey method is a survey at the place of residence.

The state of social capital was assessed using the following indicators: the degree of trust in urban communities, population’s willingness to unite to address the existing problems (solidarity), the level of responsibility for the state of affairs in the place of residence.

Under the influence of socio-economic conditions of life trust in the society, the mood for common action, the desire to improve these conditions is formed. Trust, responsibility and solidarity are largely determined by population’s social sentiment, which can be measured by respondents’ self-assessment.

Here we see the inconsistency of the situation. With higher economic indicators in Cherepovets (see Table 2) one would expect higher assessments of personal financial status and better emotional state. However, the reality is the opposite. It is obvious that the assessment of public sentiment and assessment of changes in financial status correlated with each other ( Tab. 3 and 4 ).

The improvement of financial status is noted by the residents of Vologda, despite the average wage lower than in Cherepovets. The higher level of evaluation of the emotional state is also indicative. At the same time, the share of those whose situation has become worse is greater. This fact is also reflected in social attitudes. As for the residents of Cherepovets, they mostly preserve the achieved position. The overall situation in Cherepovets is more stable than in Vologda, with predominating extreme opinions. We can assume that a higher level of inequality lies behind this.

Within the framework of the concept of social capital, there is an established point of view on trust, with which we agree as its main feature and structural element [33]. It is trust that the interaction of individuals is based

Table 3. Distribution of answers to the question “How has the financial situation changed over the past year for you/your family?” (% of respondents)

Option	Vologda	Cherepovets
It improved	10.0	6.3
It did not change	40.3	56.3
It became worse	39.7	33.7
Undecided	10.0	3.7
Source: data from the Vologda and Cherepovets population survey “Regional social capital amid crisis”, June 2017.

Table 4. Distribution of answers to the question “What can you say about your mood lately? (% of respondents)

Option Vologda Cherepovets Emotional uplift, vigor 14.0 10.7 Stable mood 53.7 67.0 Anxiety, irritation, anger 16.7 13.7 Indifference, fatigue 5.0 4.7 Undecided 10.7 4.0 Source: data from the Vologda and Cherepovets population survey “Regional social capital amid crisis”, June 2017. on. Trust is considered as a meta-relationship because it accompanies other relations [34]. According to Table 5, its level among urban residents is low. P. Sztompka points to the decline of trust in the society as a global trend [35]. In our country, according to I.V. Soboleva, the reason for declining trust, primarily institutional and further interpersonal, is generated by the reforms which led to systemic crisis [36].

According to the table on the level of trust, residents of Vologda and Cherepovets mostly either do not to trust or only partly trust; there are very few of them who trust people. The residents of Cherepovets tend to be more suspicious, but there is a greater share of those who trust most people. The citizens of Vologda are mainly focused on trust on closest people. Despite some differences, trust in urban communities has a limited radius. This is also confirmed by the fact that 97% of Vologda residents and 92% of residents of Cherepovets only trust their relatives in the first place. The level of trust in friends is rather high – 82 and 80% respectively. About 50% of respondents in both cities trust their neighbors and colleagues. All of the identified categories make up the inner circle.

This level of trust is mainly inherent in the closed type of social capital because it is focused on kinship and friendship. These relations, which do not require significant investment from participants, are formed a priori. According to A. Auzan, this type of social capital, which in the concept is called bonding or limiting capital (in Russian publications – limited or closed type), serves as a reflection of bio-social, rather than social origin [37].

Interpersonal trust is closely related to another form of trust – institutional trust. Most clearly, it is manifested through trust in government entities of different levels (Tab. 6). It would be premature to consider the differences in the level of institutional trust established during data analysis to be significant. They’re not very surprising. It is only possible to consider the differences in assessments of President significant.

This is largely due to a slightly greater level of trust in institutional structures in general from the residents of Cherepovets. There is a higher level of trust in higher government authorities and the Governor who is a local resident of Cherepovets and was popular in the city as a mayor; higher level of trust in the City Duma and the mayor. Almost the entire vertical of power is supported by the residents of the city. Vologda residents are more critical in assessing the activities of both regional and local authorities. Their level of distrust is quite high.

The established level of trust affects individuals’ social and political activity. An example is the electoral activity. In Cherepovets, the share of residents who regularly participate in election is higher (Fig. 1) .

Trust also has a significant impact on the choice of citizenship. The majority of those who almost never or rarely vote in election are distrustful. According to obtained data ( Tab. 7 ), regardless of the respondent’s place of residence there is a correlation between participation in election and the level of trust. The participants of the election procedure are primarily those who are willing to trust their environment. This dependence should attract the attention of the authorities, especially during election campaigns.

The lower level of trust among Vologda residents does not mean that they are inactive socially and politically. For example, they are more likely to take part in protests than the residents of Cherepovets (Fig. 2). They are responsible for signing collective petitions, arranging meetings with community leaders, participating in promotions such as flash

Table 5. Distribution of answers to the question “Who, in your opinion, can be trusted?” (% of respondents)

Variant	Vologda	Cherepovets
No one can be trusted	17.4	27.8
Only closest friends and relatives	62.9	48.5
Most acquaintances	15.1	17.7
Most people without an exception	4.6	6.0
Source: data from the Vologda and Cherepovets population survey “Regional social capital amid crisis”, June 2017.

Table 6. Distribution of answers to the question “How much do you trust or not trust..?” in the cities of Vologda and Cherepovets (% of respondents)

Institution	Variant	Vologda	Cherepovets
Russian President	Totally trust or rather trust	58.0	72.7
	Totally distrust	27.4	23.3
	Undecided	14.7	7.0
Russian Government	Totally trust or rather trust	47.7	52.7
	Totally distrust	39.6	35.6
	Undecided	12.7	11.7
Federation Council	Totally trust or rather trust	43.7	43.7
	Totally distrust	40. 6	38. 3
	Undecided	15.7	18.0
State Duma	Totally trust or rather trust	40.0	38.0
	Totally distrust	46.7	46.7
	Undecided	13.3	13.3
Governor	Totally trust or rather trust	34.0	37.6
	Totally distrust	52.3	49.7
	Undecided	13.7	12.7
Legislative Assembly of the Oblast	Totally trust or rather trust	33.0	34.6
	Totally distrust	50.0	47. 7
	Undecided	17.0	17.7
City’s mayor	Totally trust or rather trust	33.0	45.4
	Totally distrust	51.7	41 .6
	Undecided	15.3	12.0
City Duma	Totally trust or rather trust	32.7	36.7
	Totally distrust	49.7	45 4
	Undecided	33.0	18.0

Source: data from the Vologda and Cherepovets population survey “Regional social capital amid crisis”, June 2017.

mobs etc. The residents of Cherepovets more willingly participate in online discussions and distribution of printed materials.

Active participation in various forms of public life, establishment of various kinds of associations for the purpose of self-organization to achieve goals serve as a source of social capital of any territorial community. The range of public organizations is very wide and diverse. The obtained data provide the image of the preferences of the residents of Vologda and Cherepovets (Tab. 8).

The residents of Cherepovets, living in an industrial city, are actively participating in the trade union movement, their interest in political parties is also higher. Veterans, women and religious organizations demonstrate a variety of interests of the city’s residents. The level of their participation in parents organizations is high. This fact can be considered as a positive

Figure 1. Do you personally always vote in election? (% of respondents)

Source: data from the Vologda and Cherepovets population survey “Regional social capital amid crisis”, June 2017.

Table 7. Distribution of answers to the question “Do you personally always vote in election?” (depending on the choice of the answer to the question “Who, in your opinion, can be trusted?” (% of respondents)

Statement Yes, almost always Sometimes Rarely Hardly ever Variant О) О) О) No one 37.3 23.1 22.9 19.2 21.7 38.5 18.1 19.2 Only closest friends and relatives 47.6 35.1 17.9 37.8 24.8 15.4 9.7 11.7 Most acquaintances and strangers, all people 62.0 42.4 19.7 40.7 15.5 6.8 2.8 10.2 Source: data from the Vologda and Cherepovets population survey “Regional social capital amid crisis”, June 2017. influence on social capital formation. The importance of parents’ participation in school affairs and local community for the formation of social capital was noted by the concept of J. Coleman [38].

The residents of Vologda prefer charity, environment protection, and healthy lifestyle. In Vologda, the region’s educational center, there are three large universities and several branches, and secondary special educational institutions. This explains the large share of participation in youth organizations. Nevertheless, a large part of the population is passive and does not participate in anything.

Citizens’ participation in public activity is greatly influenced by trust. From the point of view of the concept of social capital, trust is both a condition for interaction and a product of this interaction. The degree of activity is significantly related to the expressed trust (Fig. 3). Those who distrust are to a much lesser extent involved in the activities of certain structures than those who trust. They are active mainly in parent committees and healthy lifestyle organizations. Apparently, judging by the estimates of participants of these organizations, these are the most important areas and it is there that it is

Figure 2. Have you participated in any protests in the past 12 months? (% of respondents)

Other actions aimed at making claims to the authorities

Party, political conferences, meetings, forumsof opposition parties

Participation in Internet discussions on sensitive political topics

Distribution of leaflets, newspapers, and opposition information materials

Rally, demonstration, flash-mob, picketing, strike

Meeting with a public figure, politician, deputy, etc.

Signingofcollective petitions, letters, online petitions to the authorities

□ Cherepovets □ Vologda

Source: data from the Vologda and Cherepovets population survey “Regional social capital amid crisis”, June 2017.

Table 8. Distribution of answers to the question “Did you participate in any events and activities carried out by various public organizations?” (% of respondents)

Organizations	Vologda	Cherepovets
Physical education and healthcare organizations	14.0	16.0
Parents organizations (in schools, kindergartens etc.)	11.7	19.0
Charity organizations	14.7	11.7
Creative organizations	8.0	11.3
Youth, student organizations	9.3	6.7
Recreation and entertainment organizations	6.7	9.7
Trade unions	7.0	13.0
Professional, entrepreneurship organizations and associations	8.7	8.0
Public organizations in territorial and house self-administration or housing and utilities (territorial self-government, housing cooperatives etc.)	9.0	8.7
Veterans organizations	4.3	10.3
Historic and cultural organizations	3.7	4.3
Environmental organizations	6.3	7.0
Internet organizations	4.0	6.3
Women organizations	3.7	5.7
Religious organizations	1.0	3.7
Legal and consumer rights protection organizations	2.3	2.3
Organizations on protection of vulnerable social groups (people with disabilities, minorities, unemployed)	1.7	2.0
Social and political associations, political parties	0.3	1.3
Fellow countrymen associations, national and ethnic organizations	0.7	1.7
Other groups, clubs, and organizations	1.0	4.0
Not a member/participant of any organization	57.7	48.7
Source: data from the Vologda and Cherepovets population survey “Regional social capital amid crisis”, June 2017.

Figure 3. Citizens’ participation in activities of public organizations depending on the answer to the question “Who do you think can be trusted?” (% of respondents)

Source: data from the Vologda and Cherepovets population survey “Regional social capital amid crisis”, June 2017

important to negotiate. The ability to negotiate promotes voluntary coordination, opens the way to creating public goods such as social capital. Trust in this context stimulates such coordination, despite the fact that the basis is personal interest. In this case, we observe a horizontal level of social capital distribution, which significantly contributes to the formation of identity and supports social solidarity.

Another indicator of social capital manifestation in a community is the need to unite to address common problems ( Tab. 9 ). We have already noted that the willingness to unite is seen as a manifestation of social solidarity [11].

The majority of the residents of Vologda are willing to unite. At first glance, there is some contradiction with the established level of their participation in public activities, with the nature of the manifested activity. However, in our view, the willingness to unite should rather be seen in relation to trust. As mentioned above (see Table 5), the level of trust among Vologda citizens is higher (82%) than that among the residents of Cherepovets (72%). A higher level of trust among Vologda residents determines a higher level of their willingness to unite. Accordingly, the willingness of the residents of Cherepovets to unite is reduced.

In our opinion, the reasons lie in the difference between the socio-economic situations that have developed in the cities amid crisis. The residents of Cherepovets limit the circle of their trust, but this should be seen more as a defense reaction, as a manifestation of the

Table 9. Distribution of answers to the question “There are people who are ready to unite for joint actions to address common problems, and there are those who are not ready to unite with other people. Who would you consider yourself?” (% of respondents)

Variant	Vologda	Cherepovets
I definitely belong to those willing to unite	22.0	19.7
I am possibly willing to unite	37.7	32.0
I am not willing to unite	12.3	18.3
I am definitely not willing to unite	3.3	11.0
Undecided	24.7	19.0
Source: data from the Vologda and Cherepovets population survey “Regional social capital amid crisis”, June 2017.

Table 10. Distribution of answers to the question “Do you think you personally affect today’s state of affairs in the following spheres…?» (% of respondents)

Sphere	Variant	Vologda	Cherepovets
Your family	Totally	62.0	56.3
	Significantly	26.0	25.3
	Insignificantly	7.3	9.3
	NO	2.7	5.3
	Undecided	2.0	3.7
At work	Totally	32.3	13.3
	Significantly	34.0	27.7
	Insignificantly	15.3	19.0
	NO	10.3	28.0
	Undecided	8.0	12.0
In the house, yard, district you live in	Totally	8.7	7.7
	Significantly	30.3	9.7
	Insignificantly	31.0	28.3
	NO	23.0	45.3
	Undecided	7.0	9.0
In your city	Totally	3.3	6.3
	Significantly	16.7	7.0
	Insignificantly	29.7	17.7
	NO	39.7	57.7
	Undecided	10.7	11.3
In the oblast	Totally	0.3	2.3
	Significantly	4.7	4.3
	Insignificantly	25.0	8.3
	NO	58.3	73.7
	Undecided	11.7	11.3
In the country as a whole	Totally	0.3	2.3
	Significantly	4.3	2.3
	Insignificantly	22.0	6.0
	NO	62.0	77.0
	Undecided	11.3	12.3

Source: data from the Vologda and Cherepovets population survey “Regional social capital amid crisis”, June 2017

Table 11. Distribution of answers to the question “How much do you trust or not trust passers-by on the street?” (% of respondents)

Vologda
Type of social capital	1	2	3	4	5
Fully trust	0	0	0.9	2.2	9.7
Mostly trust	0	1.9	15.7	29	41.9
Mostly distrust	0	38.9	22.6	26.9	32.3
Fully distrust	71.4	38.9	39.1	15.1	9.7
Undecided	28.6	20.4	21.7	26.9	6.5
Cherepovets
Type of social capital	1	2	3	4	5
Fully trust	0	0	0.9	0	0
Mostly trust	0	8	9.6	23.9	41.7
Mostly do not trust	21.1	33	23.7	25.4	8.3
Fully distrust	63.2	39.8	39.5	25.4	41.7
Undecided	15.8	19.3	26.3	25.4	8.3
Source: calculated by the author.

Table 12. Distribution of answers to the question “Do you think you can personally influence the state of affairs in your village, town, city, district?” (% of respondents)

Vologda
Type of social capital	1	2	3	4	5
Fully	0	0	0	6	13
Significantly	0	0	8	27	52
Insignificantly	0	30	30	37	13
Cannot influence	100	59	51	17	16
Undecided	0	11	10	13	6
Cherepovets
Type of social capital	1	2	3	4	5
Fully	0	0	4	15	42
Significantly	0	1	4	19	25
Insignificantly	5	8	28	19	0
Cannot influence	90	78	59	28	8
Undecided	5	13	6	18	25
Source: calculated by the author.

Table 13. Distribution of answers to the question “How do you assess the current financial status of you/your family?” (% of respondents)

Vologda Type of social capital 1 2 3 4 5 Fine 0 2 3 7 7 Rather fine 43 33 27 40 61 Rather bad 57 37 39 32 19 Bad 0 15 14 12 0 Undecided 0 13 17 10 13 Cherepovets Type of social capital 1 2 3 4 5 Fine 0 4.5 1.8 3.0 16.7 Rather fine 5 19 40 64 42 Rather bad 37 44 35 28 33 Bad 58 17 14 0 0 Undecided 0 15 10 5 8 Source: calculated by the author. negative experience gained in the economic crisis. As noted by the Governor of the Vologda Oblast, O.A. Kuvshinnikov, in his speech at the Russian investment Forum in Sochi, in Cherepovets during the 2009 crisis 12,000 people were under the threat of dismissal [39]. The unemployment rate in 2010 reached 5%1.

Trust, participation in association activities, willingness to unite, together with a set of factors have a significant impact on the ability of the urban community to realize its social capital. The indicators such as answers to the question “Do you think you personally affect today’s state of affairs..?” we can observe the restrictions in the implementation of social capital associated with a low level of trust and low degree of participation in association activities (Tab. 10) .

The majority of respondents is focused on the impact in the immediate environment – in the family, at work. The wider the circle of influence the lower are the assessments. At the country level, they are becoming lowest. There is a clear correlation with the level of trust (see Table 5). The respondents’ views on how to improve their ability to influence the processes at a certain level characterize their locus of responsibility, which is very limited. Responsibility means the sphere of control

1 Official website of the city of Cherepovets. Available at: -s-nacala-mirovogo-finansovogo-krizisa-dostigla-voodusev-lausih-rezultatov-35

available to the actor, the boundaries of social space that are in the zone of their influence. The zone of responsibility of the majority of respondents is limited to their family or contacts limited to production activities. However, analysis shows that there is a direct correlations between the type of social capital, the bearer of which is the individual, and the locus of responsibility.

Further research has established significant differences in the level of individuals’ accumulated social capital, which reflected in the opinions expressed by the respondents. To assess the level of social capital, the method of factor analysis was used, which revealed the presence of both open and closed type of social capital among the respondents. The justification and use of the method, as well as analysis results, were described earlier [40]. During the study, the respondents were divided into five groups depending on the calculated index characterizing the level of accumulated social capital. Further, they are indicated as type 1, type 2, type 3, type 4, type 5.

The representatives of the identified groups differed significantly in their answers to the questions that became social indicators. 46 indicators were used in the calculation of the social capital index. The differences are clearly visible from the data below ( Tab. 11 ).

The respondents belonging to types 1 and 2 significantly differ in their responses from those included in groups 4 and 5. It is significant that

the representatives of open capital (types 4 and 5) to some extent trust passers-by on the street, while the carriers of closed social capital (types 1 and 2) trust them less. There are also noticeable differences in trust among the residents of Vologda and Cherepovets. Here a lower level of trust among the residents of Cherepovets is reflected.

The differences between the selected groups in terms of their ability to influence the state of affairs in the place of residence are significant, which characterizes the possibility of implementing accumulated social capital. Individuals belonging to types 4 and 5 demonstrate the expansion of their area of responsibility for the state of affairs in the place of residence. This is expressed in their willingness and ability to influence the situation. 50% of them said that they can fully or significantly influence the state of affairs in their place of residence. The majority of members of types 1 and 2 chose “undecided” ( Tab. 12 ).

The responsibility for the state of affairs in their local community is a characteristic of open capital, the absence of it – a characteristic

of closed capital. The carriers of open capital are characterized by responsibility, creativity, desire to innovate, willingness to unite to achieve goals. They demonstrate a higher level of willingness to together. As already noted, solidarity is at the heart of the willingness to unite. This is confirmed by a higher level of activity of the representatives of these groups, as shown in the above data (see Fig. 3).

Significant differences are observed in respondents’ self-assessments of their financial status ( Tab. 13 ). The vector of changes in the financial status of the group with lack of social capital can be characterized as negative. The picture is different in the group with a high-level social capital. Here the situation is more stable, tending to improve.

The self-assessment of financial status is quite correlated with the income level. According to the research results, the average income per family member in the first group was 11,000 RUB, in the second – 15,000 RUB, in the third – 17,000 RUB, in the fourth – 20,000 RUB, in the fifth – 22,000 RUB with an average of 17 thousand rubles for all respondents. The income of groups 1 and 2 is

closer to the living wage, which characterizes poverty as an economic condition. The living wage in 2017 averaged 10,718 RUB2.

Summary. The study of urban communities in Vologda and Cherepovets helps draw a number of conclusions. First, the social capital of these urban communities varies. It is manifested in the level of interpersonal trust, the structure of institutional trust, the degree of involvement in association activities, the ability to realize their social capital through the influence on their environment. However, these differences cannot be characterized as significant. Second, it is established that in both cities closed social capital characterized by restrictions in trust and influence prevails. Third, within the boundaries of both communities, different types of social capital coexist, complementing each other. In the case of both Vologda and Cherepovets, one can observe closed and open types of social capital with the predominance of the first type. Fourth, social capital of open type is not rooted in urban communities, its accumulation is limited. The main barrier is distrust caused by socio-economic instability and, consequently, a high level of social risks. In many ways, this situation could be overcome by improving the population’s quality of life. Fifth, the study demonstrated a significant impact of the type of social capital on the respondent’s economic attitudes, which correlates with the level of available per capita income. In this case, there is an ability of types of capital to be converted into each other noted by P. Bourdieu.

Thus, the study of social capital and analysis of its state in the urban community using the indicator model of its measurement helps deeper understand and analyze the emerging system of social relations. There are obvious differences in the level of social capital accumulation, a clearly visible dependence of the respondent’s social position on the type of capital they carry. Data analysis helps determine the differences in the forms of social capital depending on the territorial belonging of its bearers. The influencing factors in this case are historical and cultural characteristics amid which the territorial community exists. At the same time, the socio-economic situation plays a significant role.