7    One-to-one unpaid labour, reimbursed family work and paid favours

Introduction

This chapter examines three further forms of work that have in common the fact that they are conducted on a one-to-one basis, namely one-to-one unpaid labour, reimbursed family work and paid favours. The intention is to display the prevalence of these forms of labour in everyday livelihood practices in post-Soviet societies in order to show on the one hand, how the transition to a hegemonic formal market economy is far from achieved and that post-Soviet societies remain characterised by diverse economies, and on the other hand, the role of these informal economies in everyday livelihood practices in the post-Soviet world.

To evaluate, first, one-to-one unpaid labour, second, reimbursed family work and, third, paid favours in post-Soviet spaces, and in order to delve deeper into the role and meaning of such work practices, in each case the Ukrainian and Moscow surveys will be analysed to explore, on the one hand, the extent of each form of work and, on the other hand, the character of such exchanges. The outcome will be an overview of the use of each of these forms of work in post-Soviet societies. This will reveal that contrary to the neo-liberal assumptions that post-Soviet societies are in transition to a fully fledged formal market economy, such informal economic activities continue to play an important role in the livelihood practices of a large segment of the population in the post-Soviet world.

One-to-one unpaid labour

Recent studies in North America reveal that the average American between the ages of 17 and 34 receives the equivalent of two years of unpaid labour from their relatives (Settersten et al. 2008). The tasks received include unpaid baby-sitting, household maintenance and repair, driving and care-giving. Indeed, it has been estimated that if one-to-one caregivers in England were paid a minimum wage for their labour, the annual bill would be approximately £87 billion, considerably more than the country’s formal healthcare budget of £81 billion (Buckner and Yeandle 2007). A similar finding about the volume and value of one-to-one unpaid labour in the caring sphere has been identified in Canada (Hollander et al. 2009). This, therefore, is not some minor labour practice. One-to-one unpaid labour refers to unpaid labour provided on an individualised level to members of households other than one’s own, such as kin living outside one’s household, friends, neighbours and acquaintances. Akin to other work practices considered in this book, such one-to-one unpaid labour is of different varieties, ranging from individualised one-way giving (often termed ‘informal volunteering’) to two-way reciprocity. When reciprocity is involved, such unpaid endeavour often blurs into reimbursed favours since the reciprocity may take the form of either in-kind labour or gifts in lieu of payment. One-to-one unpaid labour also merges at its borders with self-provisioning, given how what constitutes the household and family is becoming blurred in contemporary post-Soviet societies due to the increase in marital separation and divorce. To evaluate the extent and nature of one-to-one unpaid labour in the post-Soviet world, therefore, first, we report the findings from Ukraine and second, from Moscow.

Participation in one-to-one unpaid exchanges in Ukraine

In Ukraine, participation in the provision of unpaid exchanges on a one-to-one basis is widespread. As Table 7.1 displays, some 62 per cent of the participants surveyed had engaged in such one-to-one exchanges in the 12 months prior to interview. However, it is more common among deprived populations. Some 70 per cent of the surveyed population in the deprived neighbourhood of Kyiv had participated in this practice, and 73 per cent in the deprived rural areas, but just 54 per cent in the border town and 52 per cent in the affluent Kyiv neighbourhood studied. This reinforces studies in western countries which display how engaging in one-to-one community exchange is more common in deprived populations (Williams 2005a).

Turning to whether households use one-to-one unpaid community exchanges to get everyday domestic services undertaken, this Ukrainian survey reveals that this is not a widely used practice for getting domestic tasks completed. Just 4 per cent of all the domestic tasks surveyed were last undertaken using one-to-one unpaid community exchanges. However, some populations are more likely to use this mode of exchange than others. One-to-one unpaid community exchanges were last used in 5 per cent of cases in the deprived rural area, 6 per cent of cases in the deprived Kyiv neighbourhood, but just 3 per cent of cases in the border town and 2 per cent of cases in the affluent Kyiv suburb. The tentative conclusion, therefore, is that this is more commonly used among deprived populations to get everyday domestic service tasks completed. This is reinforced when the commonality of the usage of paid favours is compared across households with different levels of income. Lower-income households are more likely to use paid favours to get tasks completed than higher-income households. Some 5 per cent of tasks were last conducted using paid favours in the lowest-income group of households compared with just 1 per cent among some higher-income groups. Moreover, the finding is that lower-income households give and receive some 35 per cent more unpaid community exchanges on a one-to-one basis than the average household, while the higher-income households receive and provide one-third less unpaid exchanges on a one-to-one basis as the average household.

Nature of one-to-one unpaid exchanges in Ukraine

Previous studies highlight the importance and complexities of this labour practice in post-Soviet societies (Ledeneva 1998, 2006; Smith et al. 2006; Stenning et al. 2006). This study similarly reveals the existence of different types of unpaid community exchange on a one-to-one basis, ranging from kinship exchange (53 per cent of all unpaid one-to-one community exchange), neighbourly exchange (18 per cent) and exchanges with acquaintances (29 per cent). When one unravels unpaid community exchange into its different varieties and explores its configuration in various populations, some marked contrasts in its character can be identified. Comparing relatively affluent and deprived populations, in deprived districts some two-thirds of one-to-one non-monetised labour was for kin, while in the more affluent districts, one-third was for kin and two-thirds for more distant relations and closer to the monetised/non-monetised boundary. Affluent populations therefore use one-to-one monetised exchange more to expand their social networks and consolidate relationships, while such labour in deprived populations revolves more around narrower social networks of kin who are used to deliver material aid. In affluent populations, therefore, it is more about ‘getting ahead’ while in deprived populations it is more about ‘getting by’. Non-monetised labour is therefore perhaps greater among lower-income populations simply because they rely more heavily on kin, lack the financial purchasing power to use money or gifts, and/or physical wellbeing to reciprocate with in-kind labour, so engage by default and out of necessity in non-monetised labour.

These kinship exchanges ranged from baby-sitting and cooking, through repairing appliances, to kitchen and bathroom refurbishment. Examples below demonstrate this taken from both affluent and deprived areas of Kyiv. In the first case here, an interviewee, a high-earning white-collar professional living in an affluent area of Kyiv, describes how she organises child-care:

In another case, Vanya lives in a deprived semi-rural location outside of the city boundaries of Kyiv. He describes how from time to time he does some unpaid labour for neighbours:

In these examples the interviewees made it clear that no specific forms of reciprocity occurred. Such forms of labour were more voluntary in their nature. In contrast, an interviewee from a deprived part of Kyiv described how she undertook baby-sitting for a friend who lives in the same apartment block:

Here, therefore, the interviewee makes it clear that ‘reciprocity’ forms a key role in the nature of the unpaid labour. In the following example, reciprocal relations were also highlighted. Yevgeny lives in an affluent part of central Kyiv and works for a local plumbing firm:

Although deprived populations are more reliant on this labour practice and it is provided for and by closer social relations, they are nevertheless more likely to use this labour out of necessity (65 per cent of instances) while affluent populations do so out of choice (70 per cent of instances). Comparing people living in the affluent and deprived districts of Kyiv, the former were two times more likely to assert that receiving work on this basis was a choice compared with those living in the deprived district. Deprived populations therefore use this when no other options are open to them, whereas for affluent populations such a practice is more a matter of choice rather than due to a lack of choice. This finding is not in antagonistic contradiction to the finding of Brown and Kulcsar (2001) in rural Bulgaria and Clarke (2002) in Russia, that inter-household exchange is more likely among better-off households with greater economic and social resources. One-to-one unpaid exchanges are but one kind of inter-household exchange and one that is used more by deprived households, while affluent populations engage more in other kinds of inter-household exchange, as will be revealed when other forms of exchange are considered.

In sum, unpaid community exchange is more prevalent among lower-income populations in Ukraine, where it is more likely to be conducted for and by kin, not least because they lack the financial purchasing power to use money or gifts, and/or physical wellbeing to reciprocate with in-kind labour, so engage in such exchange in 65 per cent of instances out of necessity. Higher-income populations, in contrast, use one-to-one monetised exchange more to expand their social networks and consolidate relationships and in 70 per cent of instances do so out of choice. Deprived populations therefore use this when no other options are open to them, whereas for affluent populations it is conducted more as a matter of choice.

Prevalence of one-to-one unpaid exchanges in Moscow

In Moscow, 63 per cent of the surveyed population had engaged in unpaid community exchanges on a one-to-one basis in the 12 months prior to the survey. This, therefore, is a common form of labour practice among Muscovite households. However, and akin to Ukraine, Table 7.2 reveals that it is more common among households in deprived populations. Some 72 per cent of the surveyed population in the deprived neighbourhood had participated in this practice, 70 per cent in the mixed neighbourhood and 52 per cent in the affluent neighbour-hood surveyed. It is similarly the case when examining participation according to household income. Some 55 per cent of households in the highest-income quartile had conducted paid favours for others, compared with 60 per cent in the upper-middle income quartile, 65 per cent in the lower-middle income quartile and 72 per cent in the lowest-income quartile of households. This clearly intimates that unpaid community exchanges on a one-to-one basis are more common in lower-income populations. In major part, however, this is because higher-income populations have monetised one-to-one reciprocity to a greater extent than deprived populations, as will be discussed below. Although across all populations, roughly equal proportions of the population engage in paid favours and one-to-one unpaid community exchanges, affluent populations are more likely to participate in paid favours and less likely to participate in unpaid community exchanges. Meanwhile, it is the opposite for lower-income populations, who are more likely to participate in unpaid community exchanges and are less likely to participate in paid favours.

Turning to whether households use unpaid community exchange on a one-to-one basis to undertake everyday domestic services, this survey of Muscovite households reveals that this is a fairly common practice. Some 7 per cent of all tasks were last undertaken using unpaid one-to-one exchanges, which is the same proportion as were undertaken using paid favours (see below). The interesting finding here, therefore, is that the sphere of paid favours is about the same size as the realm of unpaid one-to-one community exchanges in the localities studied. However, this is not the case across all populations. Of the everyday domestic services surveyed, the finding is that unpaid one-to-one exchanges were last used in 7 per cent of cases in the deprived district, 9 per cent of cases in the mixed area and 6 per cent in the affluent area. The tentative conclusion, therefore, is that this is more commonly used among deprived and mixed populations to get everyday domestic service tasks completed. This is reinforced when examining its commonality across households with different levels of income. Households in the lowest income quartile use it to undertake 11 per cent of the 44 tasks, 7 per cent among the lower-income quartile, 6 per cent among the upper quartile and 4 per cent among the highest-income quartile.

Comparing the usage of unpaid one-to-one labour across these different populations to get everyday domestic services undertaken, the finding is again that affluent populations rely more on monetised exchanges and lower-income populations more on unpaid community exchanges to get tasks undertaken. Over one-third of one-to-one favours involve monetary payment in the deprived district surveyed, one-half in the mixed district and one-quarter in the affluent district. When kinship exchanges are excluded, where there is a greater willingness to provide and receive unpaid help, in deprived areas over three-quarters of one-to-one material support provided to friends, neighbours and acquaintances involved payment, and even in affluent urban areas payment prevailed in around half of all such instances. This intimates, therefore, that affluent populations are more monetised in terms of their community exchange cultures than lower-income populations.

Nature of one-to-one unpaid exchanges in Moscow

Analysing unpaid help provided either on a one-way or reciprocal basis by or for kin living outside the household, friends, neighbours or acquaintances, just under half of participants in the affluent district and nearly three-quarters in the deprived district engaged in such labour over the previous year, ranging from kinship exchange (45 per cent of all unpaid community exchange), neighbourly exchange (30 per cent) and unpaid exchanges with acquaintances (25 per cent). When non-kin are involved (e.g. neighbours and friends), token payments, gifts or in-kind labour are usually preferred and used whenever feasible. The use of non-monetised labour is greater in deprived populations, therefore, only because they more heavily rely on kin, lack the purchasing power to use money or gifts, and/or the physical wellbeing to reciprocate with in-kind labour, so engage by default in unpaid one-to-one exchange. Indeed, while affluent populations use this one-to-one exchange practice more to expand their social networks and consolidate relationships, deprived populations rely more on narrower social networks of kin as a coping tactic to meet material needs.

Sergey lives in a large deprived housing complex on the edge of Moscow. While his formal employment was working as an engineer in a state-owned enterprise, he would occasionally undertake one-to-one unpaid labour, fixing televisions and other appliances for neighbours:

While this example seems to demonstrate some sort of voluntary but not mandatory reciprocity, the following example highlights the more embedded nature of forms of reciprocal relations based around one-to-one unpaid labour. Natalya lives in an affluent district of Moscow. She works as a lawyer and her husband works for a large construction company:

Here, it is clear that Natalya feels it is important to consolidate and nurture her family’s relations with their neighbours for the sake of their child by way of her husband undertaking DIY jobs for the neighbours when and where necessary. Comparing people living in the affluent and deprived districts of Moscow, the former were nearly twice as likely to assert that receiving work on this basis was a choice compared with those living in the deprived district. Higher-income populations, in consequence, use one-to-one unpaid labour more to expand their social networks and consolidate relationships, and in two-thirds of instances do so out of choice. Deprived populations, in contrast, use this when no other options are open to them. Interestingly, these findings from Moscow corroborate the findings from Ukraine in general and Kyiv more particularly, and allow the cautious conclusion to be made that while people in deprived districts use forms of one-to-one unpaid labour to ‘get by’, in more affluent districts individuals use such labour to ‘get on’. The chapter now continues with an examination of the prevalence of reimbursed family labour.

Reimbursed family labour

There is often an assumption that paid exchanges exist ‘out there’ beyond the household and that the household/family unit itself is a realm of unpaid non-exchanged labour. This section seeks to explore whether this is indeed the case in post-Soviet societies. Indeed, it might be assumed that as post-Soviet societies move towards more market-oriented societies, work that previously existed outside of the market realm will be incorporated into the realm of market exchanges. Work within the household is one such instance. It might be argued that as economies become market-oriented, work that was previously conducted on an unpaid non-exchanged basis by a household member for other members of the household might start to become market-oriented, in that monetary exchange may well start to occur. Examining whether work within the household by one household member for other members of the household (what we here term ‘family work’) is starting to be performed for reimbursement, could therefore be taken as a sign of the marketisation of post-Soviet societies.

Until now, this issue of the monetisation of family work has been seldom, if ever, explicitly considered. Here, therefore, it is put under the spotlight. Of course, and as highlighted in Chapter 3, it is not sufficient to examine solely whether family labour is paid or unpaid, because in lived practice there is more a continuum of practices ranging from paid exchanges at one end and unpaid exchanges at the other end, and in the middle a whole range of other forms of exchange, ranging from one-way giving through in-kind reciprocal exchanges of labour to gifts in the forms of goods.

Seen in this light, reimbursed family work overlaps significantly with other forms of labour. Take, for example, so-called unpaid domestic work or what is sometimes called self-provisioning or even housework. It might well be argued that although unpaid household work, which is where a household member conducts a task on an unpaid basis for other members of the household, is unpaid, there is in lived practice a process of in-kind reciprocity taking place. For example, in the traditional ‘male breadwinner’ model, where the man is in paid formal employment and the woman conducts the majority of the unpaid housework and caring duties, it might well be considered that there is a very explicit in-kind reciprocal exchange of labour. The man and woman have an explicit understanding between them that one of them earns the money through paid employment and that in exchange the other fulfils the necessary unpaid domestic work and caring functions within the household. This, therefore, is not so much an unpaid exchange of labour as in-kind reciprocity, and consequently, such supposedly ‘unpaid’ domestic work sits at the boundary between ‘unpaid’ and ‘paid’ family work. Usually, however, monetary payments occur only in inter-rather than intra-generational transactions (e.g. from a parent to a child, not between parents, although this blurs in the case of marital breakdown).

There is perhaps also an overlap between ‘paid family labour’ and ‘paid community exchanges’. With the rise in divorce and family breakdown, it is in many cases no longer clear where the ‘family’ or even ‘household’ begins and ends. For instance, when a mother is given recompense for caring for a child by the father who no longer lives with them, is this paid family work? And when a woman helps out financially with the support of an ex-partner, such as by helping pay for an occasional cleaner, or by doing some cleaning in exchange for a gift, is this ‘paid family labour’, paid community exchange, unpaid community exchange or does it sit on the edges of all three forms of labour? The dissolution of families and households, therefore, significantly blurs the divide between what is ‘paid family labour’ and other forms of labour such as unpaid household work and paid community exchanges. To start to unravel whether such reimbursed family work exists in post-Soviet societies, we here begin to unravel the extent of such labour and the different forms it takes in contemporary post-Soviet societies by examining, first, the study of livelihood practices in Ukraine and, second, the livelihood practices of Muscovite households. This will reveal that despite receiving little, if any, discussion in the literature on livelihood practices and coping tactics, this labour practice is a small but significant practice pursued in post-Soviet societies, albeit more so in affluent populations where inter-generational monetary transfers occur from parents to children for tasks conducted, such as housework. Monetary payments are less common in lower-income populations, where gifts rather than money are more commonplace.

Reimbursed family labour in Ukraine

To evaluate the existence of reimbursed family labour in Ukraine, first, whether such a labour practice exists and the extent to which such a practice occurs is analysed and, second, the different forms this labour practice takes in contemporary Ukrainian society. Examining the extent of participation in paid family labour in Ukraine, the finding is that some 4 per cent of households had used this labour practice in the 12 months prior to the survey. This type of labour practice, however, was more common in the affluent Kyiv locality (where 6 per cent of households had participated in such a labour practice) than in the deprived Kyiv neighbourhood (where the participation rate was just 3 per cent), the border town (4 per cent) or the deprived rural area (2 per cent). The intimation, therefore, is that such a labour practice is more common among affluent populations. This is further reinforced when the use of such a labour practice is analysed across households according to the gross household income. While 8 per cent of the highest income quartile of households had used paid family labour during the past 12 months, this was the case among just 6 per cent of the upper-middle quartile of households, 2 per cent among the lower-middle quartile of households and none of the lowest income quartile of households had used such a labour practice.

Turning to the sources of labour used to conduct everyday domestic services, meanwhile, the finding is that less than 1 per cent of all the tasks conducted had been conducted by household members on a paid basis. The use of family members on a paid basis to conduct these tasks, however, was more common in the affluent Kyiv locality (where 1 per cent of the tasks surveyed had been conducted using this form of labour) and in the deprived Kyiv neighbourhood (where again 1 per cent of tasks were conducted on such a basis), than in the border town and the deprived rural area where well under 1 per cent of tasks were conducted using paid family labour. The intimation, therefore, is that such a labour practice is more common in larger urban areas. It also appears to be more commonly used as a labour practice among more affluent households. While 1 per cent of the domestic service tasks conducted in the past 12 months had been last undertaken using paid family labour in the highest income quartile of households, in lower-income households well under 1 per cent of the tasks had been last conducted using this form of labour. Who, therefore, is conducting this household work for other household members on a paid basis? And what types of endeavour are they engaged in? Starting with who conducts such paid labour for other household members, such labour tends to be exclusively conducted on an inter-generational basis. In other words, the provision of monetary payments between members of a household for tasks conducted is near enough entirely confined to inter-generational exchanges, such as from a parent to a child. No instances were identified where monetary payments occurred between parents or two adults (who were not parent and son/daughter) in the household.

Monetised family labour is slightly more prevalent in affluent populations, where it takes the form almost exclusively of inter-generational monetary transfers from parents to children for tasks conducted. The most common task for which payment is made is either doing various household chores, such as washing up or cleaning, and gardening. For this, the children are recompensed. This, therefore, might be read as a means of teaching children the value of money. Rather than give them ‘pocket money’ on a weekly or monthly basis to spend, this paid family labour occurs because the intention is to give them this money and to tie it to accomplishing particular tasks. As Sasha commented in relation to giving her teenage son money:

Monetary payments are less common in lower-income populations. Instead, it tends to be small token gifts, rather than money, that are more commonplace in these populations. Here, such gifts often include things such as toys for smaller children, and for older children things such as music CDs or DVDs. Importantly, the value of such gifts rarely equate in monetary value to the work undertaken. Instead, such gifts are very much symbolic and token in their nature. While smaller gifts are seemingly common, there were occurrences of parents buying a larger gift for a child, such as a mobile phone under the condition that the child would do some work around the house for the following calendar year. As Zhennya, a mother of two in the border town, stated:

It is not wholly inter-generational however, between parent and child, that such reimbursed family labour occurs. Indeed, when gifts or in-kind reciprocity is involved, the divide between non-exchanged work (i.e. what is often termed self-provisioning) and paid family labour becomes very blurred. Women and men often explicitly state that reciprocity in the form of in-kind labour is expected from their partner, thus calling into question the very depiction of self-provisioning as non-exchanged work. This is displayed in statements like ‘I do the cooking and cleaning because he goes out to the workplace and earns money’ and ‘I do the daily housework and in return, he does the washing up.’ Members of couple households therefore often explicitly state that reciprocity in the form of in-kind labour is expected from their partner. For example, a husband in the rural town stated: ‘I go out and work hard in my job and in return, my wife is expected to keep a clean and tidy home, and to ensure that I get my meals. This is just the way it works.’

Much so-called non-exchanged work, in consequence, appears to lie at the border with reimbursed family work and to involve in-kind reciprocity, calling into question the very depiction of self-provisioning as not involving exchange. Indeed, the lack of perceived equality in the balance of reciprocity between household members was a major issue frequently voiced by respondents. As one wife in the border town put it:

Such responses show a keen sense that although it is often thought that such domestic work is non-exchanged or unpaid, many engaged in such work do in fact have an acute sense of the in-kind reciprocity involved in doing this work and an even acuter sense of this when inequalities arise in the exchanges of in-kind reciprocity. As one woman expressed it:

Family labour, therefore, is often reimbursed in Ukraine, especially on an inter-generational level, and even when money is not involved there is often a keen sense of whether the in-kind reciprocity is equal or not. Here, we have only considered situations where some form of labour is involved in exchanges. It is also commonplace across all societies to find money being given to different generations without expectation of reciprocity. Unfortunately, this Ukrainian research did not consider such cash transfers between kin. Nevertheless, it is an important aspect of overall livelihood practices and one that should be considered in future research.

Reimbursed family labour in Moscow

Turning to reimbursed family labour in Moscow, we again analyse, first, whether such a labour practice exists and the extent to which it occurs, and second, the different forms this labour practice takes in contemporary Moscow society. Analysing the level of participation in paid family labour in Moscow, the finding is that some 5 per cent of households had used this labour practice in the 12 months prior to the survey, which is higher than Ukraine. This type of labour practice, however, is unevenly spatially distributed. Akin to the finding in Ukraine, the finding is that participation in such a labour practice is more common in affluent than deprived populations. In the affluent district studied, 7 per cent of households had used this labour practice in the past year compared with just 4 per cent in the mixed neighbourhood and 1 per cent in the deprived neighbourhood. This finding that such a labour practice is more common among affluent populations is further reinforced when the use of such a labour practice is analysed according to gross household income. While 11 per cent of households in the highest income quartile had used paid family labour during the past year, this was the case among just 5 per cent of households in the upper-middle quartile, 3 per cent in the lower-middle quartile and 1 per cent of households in the lowest income quartile.

Turning to the sources of labour used to conduct a diverse array of everyday domestic services, meanwhile, the finding is that less than 1 per cent of all the tasks conducted had been conducted by household members on a paid basis. The use of family members on a paid basis to conduct these tasks, however, was more common in the affluent neighbourhood (where 1 per cent of the tasks had been last conducted using this form of labour) than in the mixed and deprived neighbourhoods, where well under 1 per cent had been last conducted using paid family labour. This intimation that such a labour practice is more common in affluent populations is further reinforced when examining the type of households who make use of this labour practice. While 2 per cent of the domestic service tasks conducted in the past year had been last undertaken using paid family labour in the highest income quartile of households, in all other households well under 1 per cent of the tasks had been last conducted using this form of labour. Examining who undertakes this household work for other household members on a paid basis, akin to Ukraine, this labour tends to be exclusively conducted on an inter-generational basis when monetary payment is involved, and this labour practice is concentrated in affluent populations between parents and children. Payments are made for doing various household chores, washing the car, gardening, passing examinations and so forth. The primary rationale of the parents is to teach the children the value of money by only giving them spending money for completing particular tasks. As one father commented: ‘I only say that he can have his weekly spending money if he tidies his bedroom and cleans his bathroom. It does them no good just giving them money.’

Few instances of monetary payments were identified in lower-income populations. Instead, they tend to have things bought for them, such as a pair of jeans or shirt, if they do the household chores allocated to them. Similar to the situation in Ukraine, typical gifts to children involved CDs, DVDs and some items of clothing. As one mother states:

Akin to Ukraine, it was again the case that the boundary between paid family labour and unpaid domestic work was often blurred. Many men and women in couple households often raised the notion that reciprocity in the form of in-kind labour is expected from their partner. As participants stated: ‘I earn the money and she looks after the home’, ‘She cooks so I wash up’ and ‘I am responsible for the gardening and she is responsible for the housework’, thus raising the notion that reciprocity in the form of in-kind labour is expected from their partner. Much of what is supposedly non-exchanged work, in consequence, lies at the border of paid family labour and unpaid domestic work, and to involve in-kind reciprocity, calling into question the very depiction of self-provisioning as non-exchanged work. Indeed, this in-kind reciprocity tends to be voiced most when there is a perceived disparity in what one partner does compared with the other. As a woman asserted:

This response displays a keen awareness of the in-kind reciprocity involved in what is often read as non-exchanged work and the blurring of the edges between unpaid self-provisioning and paid family labour.

Here, therefore, a form of labour has been focused upon that has been seldom discussed either in post-Soviet societies or beyond, namely paid family labour whereby a household member reimburses another household member for work conducted. This reimbursement can be in the form of money, but also in the form of gifts or the in-kind reciprocal exchange of labour. When the latter is involved, it is arguably the case that much of what is normally considered to be unpaid household work, where one member of a household does unpaid work for other members of the household, might well be re-allocated to inhabiting the edges between the realm of unpaid and paid family labour. The overarching finding is that reimbursed family labour constitutes a small but significant livelihood practice in post-Soviet spaces. Mostly involving inter-generational exchanges between a parent and child, such a labour practice is most common in more affluent populations. In lower-income populations where such a labour practice is less frequent, when it does occur, it more commonly involves gifts and/or in-kind reciprocity, rather than monetary exchange.

Paid favours

Paid favours involve one-to-one help provided to kin living outside the household, friends, neighbours or acquaintances, and either a monetary payment and/or a gift is exchanged. As Zelizer (2005) reveals, introducing money does not de-personalise social interactions and turn them into market transactions. People are capable of negotiating their relationship, of creating distinctions between different types of money and the social relations to which they give rise. Until now, nevertheless, few studies have investigated the degree to which money changes hands during one-to-one community exchanges and the nature of the social relations involved. This section aims to fill that gap so far as post-Soviet societies are concerned, thus contributing to the small but important literature emerging regarding the prevalence of the ‘moral’ or ‘social’ economy of paid favours in western societies (Cornuel and Duriez 1985; White and Williams 2010; Williams 2005a).

Paid favours in Ukraine

Participating in the provision of paid favours in Ukraine is a widespread practice. As Table 7.3 displays, some 65 per cent of the participants surveyed had engaged in paid favours in the past year prior to interview. This, therefore, is a common form of labour practice among Ukrainian households. However, it is more common among deprived populations. Some 60 per cent of the surveyed population in the deprived neighbourhood of Kyiv had participated in this practice and 63 per cent in the deprived rural areas, but just 30 per cent in the border town and 21 per cent in the affluent Kyiv neighbourhood studied. This reinforces studies in western countries which display how engaging in paid favours is more common in deprived areas (Williams 2005a).

Turning to whether households use paid favours to get everyday domestic services undertaken, this Ukrainian survey reveals that in the realm of domestic services provision, this is not a widely used practice for getting such tasks completed. Just 4 per cent of all tasks were last undertaken using paid favours, which is the same proportion as were undertaken using one-to-one unpaid community exchanges. The interesting finding here, therefore, is that the sphere of paid services is about the same size as the realm of unpaid one-to-one community exchanges in the localities studied. Does this mean, therefore, that one is witnessing a gradual shift of community exchanges from the unpaid to the paid realm? After all, as Ukraine pursues marketisation, it might be expected that there will be a gradual monetisation of such exchanges as marketism takes hold. The first important point to make here is that this is not longitudinal data so no trends can be inferred about the direction of change. The second important point to make, and this will be returned to below, is that just because money changes hands does not mean that one is witnessing the shift of one-to-one community exchange into the realm of profit-motivated market-oriented activity.

Before addressing this issue, however, it is necessary to briefly discuss whether all households are equally likely to use paid favours to undertake domestic service tasks. The finding is that, of the everyday domestic services surveyed, paid favours were last used in 6 per cent of cases in the deprived rural area, 5 per cent of cases in the deprived Kyiv neighbourhood, but just 4 per cent of cases in the border town and 2 per cent of cases in the affluent Kyiv suburb. The tentative conclusion, therefore, is that this is more commonly used among deprived populations to get everyday domestic service tasks completed. This is reinforced when the commonality of the usage of paid favours is compared across households with different levels of income. Lower-income households are more likely to use paid favours to get tasks completed than higher-income households. Some 6 per cent of tasks were last conducted using paid favours in the lowest-income group of households and just 2 per cent in the highest-income group of households. Indeed, examining who provides and receives such paid favours, the finding is that higher-income households give and receive some 41 per cent more paid favours than the average household, while the lowest-income households receive and provide just one-half of the paid favours as the average household. The realm of paid favours, therefore, reinforces rather than reduces the disparities produced by the formal market economy. As a recently retired man explained, ‘I can no longer afford to get things done from old friends because I cannot give them a little something. The result is that they no longer get in contact with me to ask for favours.’ His ability to receive paid favours is therefore severely curtailed by the inability to offer paid favours in return. The outcome is that although half of one-to-one community exchanges provided outside the household involve monetary payment across all localities surveyed, a greater proportion in affluent than deprived households is in the form of paid favours (three-quarters compared with under one-half), doubtless because of the ability to pay in such populations.

Paid favours are conducted for and by kin, friends, neighbours and acquaintances, often for rationales other than making or saving money. The common finding in studies of western societies has been that the closer the social relations, the more likely are paid favours to be conducted for reasons other than profit, while the more distant the social relations involved, the more likely it is that profit rationales are likely to dominate (Williams 2005a). Similarly, the price charged is more likely to converge towards market prices the more distant the social relations involved, while the closer the social relations, the greater is the divergence from market norms (Cornuel and Duriez 1985; Williams 2004a, 2005a; Williams and Windebank 2001b). Examining all instances where people provide favours to kin, friends and neighbours, this survey finds that some 41 per cent involved payment. Such paid favours, therefore, constitute nearly half of all acts of one-to-one reciprocity in Ukraine. Indeed, some 36 per cent of exchanges with kin who live outside the household are monetised, 56 per cent of exchanges between neighbours and 46 per cent of exchanges between friends.

Nature of paid favours in Ukraine

Examining the character of paid favours when given and received by kin, friends, neighbours and acquaintances, the finding, akin to western societies, is that the closer the social relations involved, the less likely it is that making or saving money is likely to be a dominant motive. However, as the social relations involved between the purchaser and supplier become more distant, the greater is the likelihood that making and saving money becomes dominant. The general rule is that the closer the social relations involved, the more the rationales are social and redistributive, while the more distant the social relations, the greater is the dominance of economic rationales. This monetisation of social relations and reciprocity in contemporary Ukraine, therefore, should not be confused with the penetration of the profit-motive into realms previously occupied by mutual aid. Monetisation of exchange, as shown above, does not always march hand-in-hand with profit-oriented motivations, as is often assumed when these economies are depicted as in transition to marketisation (Williams 2005a). To explain, if one employs kin such as an unemployed cousin living outside the household to undertake a task, such as decorating, the finding is that the principal reason for doing so is often so that one can give them money in a way that does not involve ‘charity’ (i.e. one is paying them for doing the task of decorating). The motive, therefore, is to help them out by giving them some much needed money. To avoid one’s offer of money being rejected, which is highly likely if it is seen as ‘charity’, one instead asks them to do a task in order that they will accept the offer of money to help them out. Indeed, the prevalence of such motives is displayed in the finding that if the household had not paid the close social relation to undertake the task, some 80 per cent of these tasks either would not have been conducted or the household members would have done the task themselves on a self-provisioning basis.

Closer social relations, therefore, are paid for tasks to redistribute money to them in a benevolent way that avoids any connotation of ‘charity’ (e.g. when an employed woman paid her adult brother a considerable sum of money for decorating the living room in order to give money to him), or to avoid the favours owed accumulating in situations where it might not be feasible or possible to return them. Paying for favours thus oils the wheels for reciprocity in situations where it might not otherwise feasibly occur, such as when one is physically unable to return favours, or too time-pressured to offer in-kind labour in return. Consequently, money does not de-personalise social interactions and automatically convert them into market transactions (Zelizer 2005). People distinguish between different types of reimbursement and the social relations to which they give rise.

For suppliers, meanwhile, paid favours are conducted to make a little money ‘on the side’, but at the same time to provide some service to people they know who would otherwise be unable to get the job undertaken, with the balance given to these reasons shifting as one moves along the above spectrum from distant to closer social relations. Moreover, the rationales markedly vary across social groups. In higher-income populations, monetised favours are more commonly towards the profit-motivated end of the spectrum (e.g. doing a kitchen refurbishment for a neighbour for a price a little below the normal market value), while in lower-income populations such favours are usually closer to the redistributive end of the continuum and one-to-one non-monetised exchange. Such scenarios are illustrated in the following examples. Nikolai is a successful businessman who has opened up a small business doing refurbishments for domestic and commercial property. Nikolai explains how in some instances jobs can be taken on which are not solely motivated by economic reasons:

Grigory, meanwhile, is based in the deprived rural town in Kyiv’s hinterland. He works formally in Kyiv in one of the city’s large state-owned enterprises, where he has access to the necessary tools to undertake refurbishments in apartments, often at the weekends.

As demonstrated in Grigory’s example, at the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum, the paid work is undertaken more for social and redistributive reasons than solely for profit. There thus exists a continuum of forms of paid favours from those closer to informal self-employment conducted for profit-motivated rationales through to those more akin to mutual aid in terms of the social relations and motives involved. Those closer to profit-motivated informal self-employment are conducted mostly for more distant acquaintances, and are also more prevalent among higher-income populations, while those where the profit motive is largely absent are redistributive and social rationales prevail, are undertaken largely for closer social relations and are more prevalent in lower-income populations.

Paid favours particularly prevail in the realm of domestic services such as home maintenance and improvement work (e.g. plumbing, installing bathrooms and kitchens, glazing), routine domestic tasks (e.g. cleaning, cooking, gardening) and the provision of caring services (e.g. childcare). In terms of the customers, the following examples again demonstrate the prevalence of paid favours. Irina is a middle-aged businesswoman living in an affluent area in central Kyiv. As she explained, she has little time to do some of the household chores in her apartment and so outsources them to a neighbour:

While in this case a reasonable amount of money was paid for the labour, in the following example the amount of money was more symbolic and redistributive in its nature. Artem lives in a small private house next to a large housing complex on the edge of Kyiv.

In sum, multifarious motives prevail when conducting paid favours which range from more profit-motivated rationales when work is conducted for distant social relations to social and redistributive rationales when conducted for closer social relations.

Paid favours in Moscow

Participating in the provision of paid favours in Moscow is widespread. Some 65 per cent of the participants surveyed had engaged in paid favours in the past 12 months prior to interview. This, therefore, is a common form of labour practice among Muscovite households. However, and contrary to Ukraine, it appears to be more common among households in affluent populations. Some 48 per cent of the surveyed population in the deprived neighbourhood had participated in this practice, 68 per cent in the mixed neighbourhood and 75 per cent in the affluent neighbourhood surveyed. It is similarly the case when examining participation in paid favours according to household income. Some 82 per cent of households in the highest income quartile had conducted paid favours for others, compared with 74 per cent in the upper-middle income quartile, 63 per cent in the lower-middle income quartile and just 41 per cent in the lowest-income quartile of households. This clearly intimates that the sphere of paid favours reinforces, rather than reduces, the disparities produced by the formal market economy. It complements, rather than acts as a substitute for, the formal market economy.

In major part, however, this is because higher-income populations have monetised one-to-one reciprocity to a greater extent than deprived populations, as Table 7.4 reveals. Although across all populations, roughly equal proportions of the population engage in paid favours and one-to-one unpaid community exchanges, affluent populations are more likely to participate in paid favours and less likely to participate in unpaid community exchanges. Meanwhile, it is the opposite for lower-income populations, who are more likely to participate in unpaid community exchanges and are less likely to participate in paid favours. The strong intimation, therefore, is that higher-income populations in Moscow have monetised their community exchange relationships to a greater extent than lower-income populations. Does this mean, therefore, that there has been a marketisation of the work relations involved in community exchange among these higher-income populations? This is by no means certain, as will be returned to below.

Turning to whether households use paid favours to get everyday domestic services undertaken, this survey of Muscovite households reveals that in the realm of domestic services provision, this is fairly common practice for getting such tasks completed. Some 7 per cent of all tasks were last undertaken using paid favours, which is the same proportion as were undertaken using one-to-one unpaid community exchanges. The interesting finding here, therefore, is that the sphere of paid services is about the same size as the realm of unpaid one-to-one community exchanges in the localities studied (see Table 7.4). Again, this does not mean that one is witnessing a gradual shift of community exchanges from the unpaid to the paid realm. Just because money changes hands does not mean that one is witnessing the shift of one-to-one community exchange into the realm of profit-motivated market-oriented activity.

Before examining this, it is important to highlight the differences between higher-and lower-income populations in their engagement in community exchange. Of the everyday domestic services surveyed in terms of the form of work used the last time they were undertaken, the finding is that paid favours were last used in 4 per cent of cases in the deprived rural area, 8 per cent of cases in the mixed area and 9 per cent in the affluent area. The tentative conclusion, therefore, is that this is more commonly used among affluent populations to get everyday domestic service tasks completed. This is reinforced when the commonality of the usage of paid favours is compared across households with different levels of income. Lower-income households are less likely to use paid favours to get tasks completed than higher-income households. Some 4 per cent of tasks were last conducted using paid favours in the lowest-income group of households, 6 per cent in the lower quartile, 8 per cent in the upper quartile and 10 per cent in the highest-income quartile.

When one compares these different populations in terms of their usage of paid and unpaid community exchanges to get everyday domestic services undertaken, however, the finding is again that affluent populations rely more on monetised exchanges and lower-income populations more on unpaid community exchanges to get tasks undertaken. Paid favours involve the provision of one-to-one help to either kin living outside the household, friends, neighbours or acquaintances where monetary payment is exchanged. When gifts and/or in-kind labour are exchanged, it lies at the border with unpaid favours. Until now, this economic practice has been seldom investigated. However, over one-third of one-to-one favours involve monetary payment in the deprived district surveyed, one-half in the mixed district and one-quarter in the affluent district. When kinship exchanges are excluded, where there is a greater willingness to provide and receive unpaid help, in deprived areas over three-quarters of material support provided to friends, neighbours and acquaintances involved payment, and even in affluent urban areas payment prevailed in around half of all such instances. In consequence, payment appears to be common whenever favours are exchanged. The suggestion again, therefore, is that affluent populations are more monetised in terms of their community exchange cultures than lower-income populations. Does this mean that they are also more profit-motivated when giving and receiving such one-to-one exchanges?

Nature of paid favours in Moscow

Examining all instances where people provide favours to kin, friends and neighbours, this survey first finds that some 51 per cent involved payment. Such paid favours, therefore, constitute over half of all acts of one-to-one reciprocity in the Moscow districts surveyed. Indeed, some 30 per cent of exchanges with kin who live outside the household are monetised, 65 per cent of exchanges between neighbours and 62 per cent of exchanges between friends. This realm therefore provides some support for the complementary perspective towards the informal economy. This is because higher-income households give and receive some five times more paid favours than the average household, while the lowest-income households receive and provide just one-fifth of the paid favours as the average household, displaying how this informal work reinforces the socio-spatial disparities of the formal economy.

It should be noted, however, that kinship exchange has largely not been monetised. Instead, kinship exchange is mostly either unpaid or gifts (but not money) are given and accepted, as Ledeneva (1998) has shown in her in-depth discussions of blat, networking and informal exchange. This socially embedded own account work, therefore, only applies to non-kinship exchange such as friends and neighbours. Indeed, some two-thirds of favours for friends and neighbours involve monetary payments, displaying that such paid favours are a key mechanism for the delivery of community self-help. Analysing the character of paid favours when given and received by kin, friends, neighbours and acquaintances, the finding, akin to Ukraine, is that the closer the social relations involved, the more the rationales are social and redistributive, while the more distant the social relations, the greater is the dominance of making and saving money. This monetisation of social relations and reciprocity in contemporary Moscow, therefore, should not be confused with the penetration of the profit-motive into realms previously occupied by mutual aid.

Take, for example, a young female student who looked after the preschool child of her neighbour each afternoon. For this student, this task was conducted to make a little ‘extra money’ to fund her studies, but just as importantly, also to help out the woman who would otherwise be unable to work and make ends meet. For the mother of the child, meanwhile, this was not only ‘saving money’ compared with formal childcare but, importantly, she saw it as a way of helping the student to finance her studies. Another instance of the existence of paid favours is a self-employed plumber who had a sliding scale of rates for different groups ranging from what he called ‘massive’ rates well above market prices for affluent foreigners to the ‘token payments’ he asked from neighbours and friends so they would not think he was offering them ‘charity’. For him, however, these were seen as charitable acts since, as he put it, ‘they wouldn’t be able to afford to get the boiler repaired or heating fixed otherwise’. Similar to this, Vladimir explains how this works in his home removal business:

An example of the more symbolic nature of paid labour is provided by Natalya, a young nail manicurist, who lives on the edge of Moscow:

For suppliers, in consequence, paid favours are conducted to make a little money ‘on the side’ but at the same time to provide some service to people they know who would otherwise be unable to get the job undertaken, with the balance given to these reasons shifting as one moves along the above spectrum from distant to closer social relations. Moreover, the rationales markedly vary across social groups. In higher-income populations, monetised favours are more commonly towards the profit-motivated end of the spectrum (e.g. doing a kitchen refurbishment for a neighbour for a price a little below the normal market value), while in lower-income populations such favours are usually closer to the redistributive end of the continuum and one-to-one non-monetised exchange.

For customers, meanwhile, closer social relations are paid for tasks to redistribute money to them in a benevolent way that avoids any connotation of ‘charity’, or to avoid the favours owed accumulating in situations where it might not be feasible or possible to return them. Sveta, a housewife in an affluent part of Moscow, demonstrates such a scenario:

While in Sveta’s example the monetary transaction was important for both parties, in Alena’s example below, the transfer of monies was much more symbolic in nature. Alena was a married mother of two living in a deprived housing complex on the edge of Moscow:

Paid favours particularly prevail in the realm of domestic services such as home maintenance and improvement work (e.g. plumbing, installing bathrooms and kitchens, glazing), routine domestic tasks (e.g. cleaning, cooking, gardening) and the provision of caring services (e.g. childcare). This survey uncovers that 57 per cent of all off-the-books work is conducted for closer social relations and for rationales other than making or saving money. Women in more than two-thirds (64 per cent) of cases conduct such activities.

Conclusions

This chapter has examined the prevalence and nature of three forms of one-to-one exchange in post-Soviet societies, namely one-to-one unpaid labour, reimbursed family work and paid favours. To evaluate the extent and nature of such activities in post-Soviet spaces, and in order to delve deeper into the role and meaning of such exchanges, the surveys conducted in Ukraine and Moscow have been analysed. This has revealed that in both Ukraine and Moscow, unpaid one-to-one labour is more prevalent among lower-income populations, where it is more likely to be conducted for and by kin, not least because they lack the financial purchasing power to use money or gifts, and/or physical wellbeing to reciprocate with in-kind labour, so engage in such exchange out of necessity. Higher-income populations, in contrast, use one-to-one monetised exchange more to expand their social networks and consolidate relationships, and do so more out of choice. Deprived populations therefore use this when no other options are open to them in order to ‘get by’, whereas for affluent populations it is conducted more as a matter of choice, in order to ‘get on’.

The chapter then examined the nature of a form of labour that has been seldom discussed either in post-Soviet societies or beyond, namely paid family labour whereby a household member reimburses another household member for work conducted. This reimbursement can be in the form of money but also in the form of gifts or the in-kind reciprocal exchange of labour. The overarching finding is that reimbursed family labour constitutes a small but significant livelihood practice in post-Soviet spaces. Mostly involving inter-generational exchanges between a parent and child, such a labour practice is most common in more affluent populations. In lower-income populations where such a labour practice is less frequent, when it does occur, it more commonly involves gifts and/or in-kind reciprocity, rather than monetary exchange. The notion that the existence of such a labour practice marks the advent of a marketisation of the domestic realm, however, does not appear to be valid. When one examines the rationales underpinning such exchanges, there is little notion that the participants in such practices view themselves as engaged in market-like profit-motivated exchanges. Broader social and redistributive rationales, such as the desire to impart an understanding of the meaning of money, seem to be more to the fore in terms of the participants’ motives than profit-motivated rationales, and neither do they perceive these exchanges as akin to market-oriented exchanges conducted for the purpose of profit.

Finally, concerning the nature of paid favours, the chapter reveals in both Ukraine and Moscow the existence of a continuum of forms of paid favours from those closer to informal self-employment conducted for profit-motivated rationales through to those more akin to mutual aid in terms of the social relations and motives involved. Those closer to profit-motivated informal self-employment are conducted mostly for more distant acquaintances, and are also more prevalent among higher-income populations, while those where the profit motive is largely absent are redistributive and social rationales prevail, are undertaken largely for closer social relations and are more prevalent in lower-income populations.