The reforms in Russia are also being initiated by the government; however, it must be acknowledged that some preparatory work has been done in society. Over the past several decades of reform, the educated segments of Russian society have been actively discussing the ideas and consequences of these reforms.
The Russian government’s focus on transitioning to innovation-driven development is typical of the present stage in the country’s development. While the changes are unavoidable and understood by society, it is necessary to determine what should be considered as "development" and "change", and exactly what changes are needed for the sake of development.
To do this, we must understand the difference between the concepts of "change" and "development". In short, the concept of "change" establishes that change has occurred regardless of its orientation, while "development" is used to refer to the processes of making qualitative changes for the sake of improvement. “Development” does not just establish that change has occurred, but also contains some evaluation of this change and describes its orientation.
Change implies the transition from one state to another. It has been understood for a long time that the process of social change is not naturally occurring and evolutionary in nature. Since the first bourgeois revolutions, a managerial (i.e. artificial) component (as opposed to evolutionary ones) has become evident in all social processes.
Currently, the following main models of controlling processes of social change can be distinguished: reform, modernization, and transformation.
Reform means transformation, reconstruction, and change. Present-day China serves as an example of the reform model. The social changes initiated in the late 1970s are being carried out both by borrowing ideas from elsewhere and on the basis of national traditions, views and values. These change processes are initiated by the government, without years of groundwork beforehand, and are compressed in time, which can be explained by the need to implement the ideology of "overtaking development."
The reforms in Russia are also being initiated by the government; however, it must be acknowledged that some preparatory work has been done in society. Over the past several decades of reform, the educated segments of Russian society have been actively discussing the ideas and consequences of these reforms.
Modernization means progressive change to improve a system’s functioning. The process by which a traditional society becomes more developed is usually called "modernization."
Modernization can be successfully implemented under a number of conditions, the most important of which are that the government and a majority of the able-bodied population of a country recognize the need for it, having a clear conception of the key objectives of modernization, and the existence of the necessary means to achieve these objectives.
Modernization in itself is a process of artificially converting an existing societal structure to a more "advanced" standard. This was true of Peter the Great’s modernization efforts, when the Netherlands and Germany were seen as a standard and during Stalin's modernization push to create an advanced economic structure using the example of the UK and U.S.
Russia’s current modernization efforts, which are vigorously supported by the media, are seen by a certain segment of society as a last chance to preserve Russia as a competitive nation.
Transformation (conversion, transfiguration, metamorphosis) entails a radical change in form. But since form and content are in dialectical unity, this conversion ultimately means the practical demolition of the existing social order. In the span of a single century, Russia has experienced two transformations – the revolution of 1917 and "perestroika" in 1986-2000.
Transformation , unlike modernization, affects all spheres of society. It changes not only those areas that are responsible for development, but also those that provide a society with everyday needs.
In terms of socioeconomic development, it should be noted that the main features of transformation are only revealed over time, because the process consists of a series of socioeconomic changes. A new qualitative state of the country or organization in question is the end result of the process.
Russia’s reforms often suffer from simplistic solutions, unrealistic scheduling and lack of coordination, and therefore are often perceived as an imitation of reform. Moreover, the unpredictability of the state's behaviour is a strong destabilizing factor that exacerbates the already severe problems associated with the transition to innovation-driven development. In addition, the state continues to attempt to change the rules midgame.
