Incomes of scientists in the USSR in the 1920s (Based on materials from the budget survey of 1925)

Mazur Liudmila Nikolaevna ORCID: 0000-0003-0407-3816 Doctor of History Professor, Document Studies, Archival Studies and State Administration History Department, Ural Federal University after the First Russian President B.N. Eltsin; Leading Research Fellow, Russian State University for the Humanities 620000, Russia, Sverdlovsk region, Yekaterinburg, Turgenev str., 4, office 482 lmaz@mail.ru Other publications by this author

Introduction

The formation of Soviet science took place in difficult conditions. During the revolution and the Civil War, many scientists migrated abroad, and the rest were on the verge of survival. This is evidenced by the surviving diary entries. So, for example, in the diary of the historian A.V. Oreshnikov we read [https://corpus.prozhito.org/person/213 ]:

November 30 (November 17) 1918

"In the morning I went to the office of S.V. Prokhorov, where I was told that he was being evicted from his apartment in 3 days! After 3 hours from the Museum I went to his apartment, where I was shocked by the picture: the whole family, including his daughter and her husband, are packing their belongings! Poor us all! Any inviolability of the person, property does not exist. S.V. with great composure gave me coffee, even drank with him a glass of vodka with caviar and white bread (sic!)!! Tears choked me. When will all these horrors stop? Izvestia publishes other horrors: Generals Ruzsky, Radko-Dmitriev, former ministers Rukhlov and Dobrovolsky were shot... it's scary to write it down. No one can vouch for his life. Hunger makes you feel. There are no provisions. There was a food-related meeting at the Museum; will our initiatives succeed? There is no firewood either, I'm heating it with boards. I read in the calendar: "To win, what do you need? Courage, more courage and constant courage." No one has this courage, the Russian people have fallen so low. The only consolation: hope. In the evening I had fun: I corrected the note "The relationship of Mithridates Eupator to Olvia according to numismatics"."

In 1919, some steps were taken to improve the financial situation of scientists, in particular, academic rations were introduced. And since 1921, thanks to the Central Commission for the Improvement of the Life of Scientists (TSEKUBU), the issues of providing scientists with housing, food and basic necessities began to be resolved. How have these events affected the standard of living of researchers?

To reconstruct the living conditions, including the structure of income and consumption of scientists, the materials of the budget survey of 1925, conducted by the CSU together with the Section of scientists, allow.

Sources and methods

The study of budget statistics has a fairly rich tradition. First of all, peasant budgets came to the attention of researchers. They were studied by M. N. Chernomorsky, Yu. P. Bokarev, N. G. Minyailo, V. A. Pozhda, N. L. Rogalina, V. M. Selunskaya, V. P. Pushkov and others ^[1-2], laying the foundations of the historiography of budget statistics. A qualitatively new stage in the historiography of the study of budgets occurred in the 1990s, when, thanks to the microcomputer revolution and the penetration of computer technology into the laboratory of historians, works based on the analysis of the budgets of workers and peasants using database technology appeared.

As a result, there are two approaches to the analysis of budget survey materials in historical science: 1) study of the data of primary forms using database technologies and methods of mathematical and statistical processing of budget information ^[3-5]; 2) study of aggregated indicators contained in statistical forms and analytical notes ^[6-9]. In this case, the historian is dealing with "ready-made" indicators obtained by statistical agencies taking into account the program for the development of budget information, which inevitably limits the range of tasks to be solved that do not go beyond the program of statistical analysis, narrowing the information potential of the source.

The budget survey of scientific workers in 1925 is in some sense unique both in terms of the object of research and in terms of the completeness of the materials preserved in the archive. The initiator of the budget survey was TSEKUBU, pursuing the objective of an objective assessment of the living and working conditions of researchers. The complex of primary survey documents of 300 families was preserved in the GARF and served as the basis for compiling a database and reconstructing the lifestyle of Soviet scientists [GARF. F.R- 5462. Op. 7. D. 397-412].

Today it is difficult to judge the principles of sampling and territorial distribution of families. According to Table. 1 it can be seen that the sample included a family who lived in the capital cities – scientific centers (Moscow and Leningrad) and made up 1/3 of the entire sample; as well as in the cities – old university centers (Kharkov, Tomsk, Kazan, Novocherkassk) and new Soviet university cities (Voronezh, Krasnodar, Perm, Rostov, Simferopol).

As a result of the repair, we get an array of 282 budgets, in which 178 families of scientists living in different cities of the RSFSR are represented – this is the most representative array; 75 budgets belong to the cities of the Ukrainian SSR (Kiev, Odessa, Kharkov); and 29 budgets belong to other union republics – Azerbaijan (8), Belarus (11) Uzbekistan (10). It makes sense to study the last three sets of budgets of the capital cities of the Union republics together, since the processes of formation of national scientific centers took place in the context of political decisions of the Soviet government. Higher educational institutions were opened here in the first years of Soviet power, including the Central Asian State University (1918), the Azerbaijan State University (1921); the Belarusian State University (1921). To conduct the survey, the families of researchers employed at universities and scientific institutions, including large museums, libraries, and observatories, were selected by their main place of work.

Table 1.

Territorial structure of the information array of the budget survey of scientists of the USSR 1925*

Compiled by: State Archive of the Russian Federation (GARF). F.R- 5462. Op. 7. D. 397-412.

During the survey , several forms were filled out for each household: 1) the main form "Budget Survey" is the most informative document, with a volume of 12 A4 pages; 2) form 1 "Composition of monetary and in–kind receipts and expenditures of the budget month", accumulating information of the main form; 3) nutrition sheet; 4) agricultural form; 5) time budget; 6) income and expenditure records designed to record daily income and expenses both in kind and in monetary terms. All forms, with the exception of income and expense records, were filled in by registrars by interviewing family members. In general, the information of the main questionnaire form allows us to reconstruct the conditions and standard of living of the family of a researcher and analyze the factors affecting the size of income and consumption.

To study the everyday life of scientists, a mixed strategy was chosen – a problem-oriented database was designed, in the structure of which several objects were reflected – a scientist, a family, housing, the budget itself (income and expenses). The main source for filling out the database was the questionnaire form "Budget Survey". Filling in the fields was carried out as indicated in the document, i.e. in a source-oriented mode.

The database structure contains several information blocks:

- identification fields (number in order; budget number; city – 3 fields);

- head of the family (gender, main and additional place of work, length of service, profession, education, educational institution, nationality, marital status, age – 12 fields);

– family (number of family members, demographic type of family, number of minor children; number of dependents; availability of servants – 6 fields);

– farm (field or garden) – 2 fields;

– monetary income of the family (total received from the main source of income; tariff category; other sources; natural income – 9 fields);

– premises and expenses for it (type of household, type of premises, characteristics of housing (individual/communal/dormitory), number of rooms, living area, area for 1 family member, heating, stove, water supply, sewerage, bathroom, lighting, cost of premises, one–time expenses for premises, fuel costs - 16 fields);

– balance of cash income and expenses (receipts during the month; spent for the month – 5 fields);

– the composition of monetary and in-kind income and expenses (total income; salary at the main place of work; salary for secondary employment; other income of the head of the family; social benefits; income of other family members; other types of income; other income; undisclosed income; total expenses; room expenses; food expenses; clothing; for cultural and educational needs; socio-political expenses; other expenses; unexplained expenses; in-kind receipts; consumption of natural products – 37 fields);

- archive address.

 Most of the fields (24 fields) have an additional column "Note", in which the comments of the registrar or the operator who was engaged in entering information were placed. In total, the database includes 91 fields, 300 records.

Main results

Let's briefly describe the socio-demographic portrait of a researcher. The first thing that catches the eye when studying the materials of budget surveys is the gender composition. 4 women (5.0%) and 268 men (95.0%) took part in the survey. The proportion could vary depending on the territorial factor: in Moscow, the proportion of women scientists was 7.8%, in the Russian province - 3.4%; in the republics there are none.

The age structure of the scientific community is characterized by a predominance of middle–aged and elderly scientists: 37.6% are scientists aged 41-50 years; 30.1% are "31-40 years old" (together these two groups made up more than half of 67.7%); 25.9% are "51 and older". The average age in the sample is 44.5 years.

The sample data correlate with the information in the Moscow directory, where the age group from 31 to 40 years was 35.6%; from 41 to 50 years -30.7% (together both groups have a share of 66.4%). Young people (21-30 years old) accounted for 11.6%, and on the contrary, older age groups (51 and over) – 22.0%. The average age of Moscow scientists in 1925 was 42.1 years ^{[10, Appendix, p.2]}.

In general, all types of scientific institutions were included in the sample: 83.7% are teachers and professors who worked in higher educational institutions, 5% are employees of research institutions of academic or branch subordination, and 5% are employed in scientific institutions of museum and library types.

Science in the 1920s was mainly a male occupation. The absolute majority of scientists were engaged in teaching, having a work experience of 15 years or more. The specificity of the current moment is that the 1920s is a turning point when there is a generational change in science. It will be completed by the mid-1930s. In 1925, the social portrait of science in the USSR is determined by the generation of scientists, which took shape at the end of the XIX century and reached creative maturity in the first decade of the XX century.

The majority of researchers who participated in the 1925 survey were married (88.3%). Only a small part (12.8%) did not have a marriage partner for various reasons: 4.3% were widowed; two people (0.7%) were divorced; 6.7% belonged to the category of single/unmarried.

Numerically, the sample was dominated by medium–sized families of 5-7 people of the extended type (33.7%), followed by the frequency of occurrence of nuclear small families (2-4 people) - 27.0%. Nuclear families made up a total of 44.7% in the sample, of which 82.7% had minor children, including 1 child – 45.7% of families; 2 children – 23.6%; 3 or more children – 13.3%.

The indicator characterizing the entire studied set of families as a whole is the average family composition - it amounted to 4.8 people. The lowest group average is observed in single-parent families of scientists living on the territory of the Union republics. The largest is in extended families of provincial cities. In the capital cities, the extended family consisted of an average of 5.2 people, the nuclear family consisted of 4.3 people.

Let's consider the indicators of the standard of living of scientists in 1925, obtained during the budget survey. The average monthly income of a family of a researcher in 1925 was 230.82 rubles; expenses – 221.98 rubles (Table 2). At the same time, the salary for the main place of work in the income structure averaged 120.14 rubles, only half determining the family income, which stimulated the search for additional jobs to ensure a decent standard of living for his family. The vast majority of the surveyed researchers (77.3%) had an additional place of work (and more than one).

The distribution of families by income is as follows: 52.5% had an income below the arithmetic mean; 37.2% – above and 10.3% – from 210 to 240 rubles, i.e. close to the arithmetic mean. The distribution of families of scientists by expenses correlates with income: 55.3% – spent less than 210 rubles per month, 35.8% – more than 240 rubles; and 8.9% – within the limits of fluctuations of the arithmetic mean (210-240 rubles).

Taking into account the amount of remuneration of a scientist in accordance with the tariff schedule, the variability of indicators of total income and expenses, the following categories of researchers can be distinguished:

- low–income – less than 120 rubles per month - 14.2% of families;

- with average income – from 120-240 rubles – 48.6%;

- with a high level of income – from 240 and above – 37.2%.

Table 2.

Distribution of families of scientists of the USSR by the size of the total monthly income and expenditure*

* Compiled according to the database "Scientific workers of the USSR. 1925".

Here is an example of the budget of a metropolitan family with incomes close to the arithmetic mean. In particular, the family of a researcher at the State Astrophysical Institute, established in 1923 in Moscow on the basis of the Main Physical Observatory, had an income of 238 rubles. The age of the scientist was 43 years old, by marital status he was a widower with two minor children. The total number of family members was four people, including a housekeeper. The family income was formed from several sources: due to the salary of a scientist who worked in addition to the institute at the observatory (154.70 rubles), in addition, 80 rubles were borrowed. Family expenses amounted to 205.41 rubles per month, including 53.04 rubles (25.8%) – housing costs; 87.06 rubles (42.4%) – food; 24.33 rubles (11.8%) – clothing, shoes, hygiene and treatment; 6.85 rubles. (3.3%) – for books, magazines, theater and entertainment; 29.83 rubles. (14.5%) were other expenses (lent). Additionally, the family consumed food products in the amount of 87.54 rubles. [GARF. F. R-5462. Op. 7. D. 406. L. 205-211ob.]. The given example of a budget with average statistical parameters is close to a crisis consumption model with a predominance of spending on meeting basic needs.

This example is quite indicative both from the point of view of budget formation mechanisms (one employee, several places of work), and from the point of view of the cost structure, which includes, in addition to basic payments for housing, food and clothing, expenses for cultural and socio-political needs, which together reach 3-6%.

 A similar budget structure is demonstrated by families in Moscow and Leningrad with high income indicators. For example, the income of the family of a professor of medicine at Moscow State University (50 years old) of 6 people amounted to 733.4 rubles per month., expenses 751.74 rubles., where the main costs went to pay for housing (23.9%); food (22.2%), clothing and shoes, hygiene (13.2%), cultural and socialpolitical needs (6.0%), borrowed (34.0%) [GARF. F. R-5462. Op. 7. D. 406. L. 50-56ob.], i.e., in the conditions of transition in high-income groups of families, the costs of food, clothing and shoes are growing, there are free funds that can be to borrow. However, in the hierarchy of needs, spending on books, magazines, theater and other entertainment has not yet achieved statistically significant results.

As can be seen from the above description of the budget, total income and expenses depend on a number of factors of an objective and subjective order. The first group includes information about the amount of wages in scientific institutions; the number of jobs available for combining; social support measures, the availability of field/garden farming. Subjective factors include information about the scientist's family (number of people, number of employees and dependents; number of consumers, children), as well as status and socio-demographic characteristics of the scientist (age, qualifications).

In 1922, the tariff schedule for researchers was approved, which included 17 categories, and employees were divided into 3 large groups: scientists-specialists of scientific institutions and university teachers were paid for 16-17 categories, the second group – scientists (14-15 category), the third group – scientific and technical staff (10-13 category). In 1924, the professor's salary averaged 28-33 rubles per month, in January 1925 it increased to 80 rubles, and by the end of the year, on average, to 120-150 rubles per month ^{[11, p. 116]}. Despite the systematic increase in the wages of scientists, it not only lagged far behind the pre-war earnings of scientists, but was significantly inferior to the wages of other categories of workers ^{[12, p. 197]}.

In general, the salary at the main place of work was 52% of the total income, additional sources (lectures, consultations, royalties, paid services, translation, payments at an additional place of work) – 34%; in–kind receipts - 3%; other income (from the sale of things, loans in debt, renting housing in rent) – 7%, social benefits – 0.04%; incomes of other family members – 3.5%.

The variety of income sources indicates different strategies of scientists in solving the problem of material support for their families. The main option for obtaining additional income was related to the search for new jobs where it was possible to realize their professional competencies – universities, laboratories, hospitals, etc. On average, there were 1.3 jobs per 1 researcher.

Table 3

Distribution of families of scientists by income from other sources of cash receipts, abs./%*

*Compiled according to the database "Scientific workers of the USSR. 1925".

** Lectures, consultations, royalties, paid services, translation, payments for an additional place of work

*** Sale of things, loans in debt, rental of housing

48.2% worked part–time at another university, 3.9% at the Academy of Sciences, medical institutions, 4.9% were engaged in literary work and translations, 1.4% in the library, museum; 8.9% at enterprises, organizations and management structures; 7.8% were engaged in private practice. 3.5% of families received social benefits from Tsekubu or in social insurance. The amounts of payments ranged from 4.66 to 63 rubles, while 0.7% of families received an amount over 50 rubles (see Table. 3), i.e. measures of social support for the absolute majority of families of scientists did not play a big role in the formation of the budget. Funds were given out for a variety of needs — treatment, funerals, purchase of clothes and shoes, payment for children's education, scientific trips, etc. Their size ranged from 10 to 200 rubles ^{[13, p. 204]}.

A widely practiced option for replenishing the budget is selling things (14.8%); getting money in debt (39.7%); from renting out housing (3.5%). But the most common way to overcome the budget deficit were loans from individuals or in the mutual assistance fund, while 13.1% of families of researchers had a debt of up to 20 rubles, and 18.1% – from 20 to 50 rubles.

In 14.5% of families of scientists, in addition to the head of the family, there was also an employee(s) who contributed to the total income of the family. At the same time, half of families with two or more employees had an additional income from 20 to 50 rubles, and 2.4% of families – over 100 rubles. In the absolute majority of families of scientists, only the head of the family formed the budget, experiencing a fairly high burden on the maintenance of family members.

And, finally, another source of replenishment of the budget is in–kind receipts in the form of commodity loans or housing benefits established by the university. The variation range of this indicator ranges from 7.36 rubles to 227.98 rubles, significantly affecting the overall family budget.

In general, the distribution of families by income level is as follows (see Table 4):

- With a low level of per capita income (up to 30 rubles per family member) – 19.1%

- With an average level of per capita income (30-60 rubles) – 51.8%;

- With a high level of per capita income (over 60 rubles) – 29.1%.

Low-income groups (up to 30 rubles per 1 family member) have the largest share in the Russian province (27.3%) and in Ukraine (20.0%), the smallest in Baku, Minsk, Tashkent - 3.5%. High–income categories of families (over 60 rubles per family member) are more common in the capitals of the Union republics – 44.8% of families; in Ukraine their share is 37.4%; in Moscow and Leningrad – 24.5%; in the Russian province they are the least - 21.6% (see Table 4).

Of particular interest is the analysis of families with ultra-high incomes per family member of more than 90 rubles, where the head of the family is mainly a professor (53.3%) or a teacher (23.3%), who additionally earns in 1-2 places. 40.0% of families in this category are characterized by additional income (from 22 to 593.5 rubles) received from private practice or at the expense of royalties. Every fourth family (20.0%) had housing benefits. In 13.3% of families who received income for 1 member over 90 rubles, there was also an employee who contributed to the total family income (from 42 to 96 rubles). In the studied sample, a third of families (36.7%) with high per capita income borrowed from individuals or sold things, rented out living space.

Table 4.

Distribution of families of scientists from different regions of the USSR by income per 1 family member*

*Compiled according to the database "Scientific workers of the USSR. 1925".

Getting into high-income groups could be a random event: the one-time nature of the analyzed budget survey, aimed at studying monthly budgets, does not allow us to unambiguously judge the distribution and differentiation of families by income level. Belonging to low-income categories of families, on the contrary, is less susceptible to random fluctuations in monthly income and reflects some patterns of budget formation. Thus, 19.14% of families received less than 30 rubles per capita income, of which in 42.6% of cases the head of the family had only one place of work and in another 29.6% worked additionally in another place. More than half (55.5%) of scientists held the positions of teachers, assistants, librarians, laboratory assistants with a tariff category of 8-13 (13.0%) and 14-15 (44.4%).

So, if the super–profitable budgets of families are formed mainly due to external factors, high status characteristics of a scientist, his activity in terms of part-time earnings, then the formation of low-income groups is more associated with subjective factors - not only with lower status characteristics of a scientist, but also with family workload.

The amount of income determines the size and structure of expenses. In general, these indicators are in linear dependence, which does not exclude possible variations associated with the formation of a deficit, balanced or surplus budget (Table 5).

Table 5

Distribution of families of scientists of the USSR by income level and budget type*

*Compiled according to the database "Scientific workers of the USSR. 1925".

In the studied sample, 45.0% of families had balanced budgets, where the difference between income and expenditure did not exceed 10-15 rubles; a deficit budget (expenses exceed income) occurs in 22.3% of cases; a surplus (income above expenses) – in 32.6%, i.e. in every third family (see Table 5).

A surplus budget is more common in high-income families (51.4%), a balanced budget in low-income (67.5%) and middle-income families (52.6%), a deficit budget is found in all categories of families, but more often in high- and middle-income families. The type of budget largely indicates consumption practices (behavior), as well as the level of consumer demands formed by lifestyle. In a number of forms of the budget survey, the registrar describes family household practices of farming in conditions of austerity:

"The economy is very economical, based on the daily expenditure of no more than 1-70 kopecks. In order not to get out of the budget, daily food products are purchased for every day in order to avoid spending too much on larger purchases .... The object complains about the utter impossibility of acquiring scientific books necessary for him due to the lack of money for this" [GARF. F. R-5462. Op. 7. D. 403. L. 52-57ob.].

"The month is in many respects not very typical, in particular, household expenses due to the departure of the head of the family from the 10th were significantly reduced, due to the lack of servants and the absence of a husband, the wife was limited to the most necessary, ate stale bread for a long time, old soup, etc." [GARF. F. R-5462. Op. 7. D. 411. l. 100-109ob.].

Conclusions

Thus, the analysis of the size and structure of the income of the families of researchers allows us to draw the following conclusions:

– by the mid-1920s, the income of scientists as a whole grew and had a positive trend, but did not reach the pre-war level, providing mainly satisfaction of vital needs;

– the average income of researchers was higher than the average income of workers and employees (the average wage of a worker in Moscow in 1925 was 75.61 rubles, in Moscow province – 61.48 rubles) ^{[14, p. 111]};

– the main ways to increase income were associated with the intensification of the scientist's work - working in several places, as well as using the opportunities to receive royalties, income from private practice, lectures and consultations;

– the crisis model of consumption is also evidenced by the extraordinary practices of increasing incomes associated with obtaining income from the sale of things, renting out housing;

– differentiation of researchers by income level depended on the status characteristics of the scientist, his activity, creating prerequisites for the allocation of elite categories of researchers, in the 1930s. formed into a hierarchical system of teaching staff with an appropriate set of privileges.

The peculiarity of the studied period was the state of transition from a situation of social catastrophe, the characteristic features of which were hunger, increased mortality due to diseases and a decrease in living standards, to the stage of economic recovery and stabilization of the socio-political situation. In parallel with the normalization of lifestyle, there was a process of restoration of the pre-war consumption structure. The transition was complicated by social experiments aimed at constructing a new socialist reality, educating a "new" person – the bearer of a system of values and communist ideology. This factor contributed to the diversification of consumption patterns, contributing to the formation of its three main variants – the crisis (vital); transitional; and the new (Soviet) consumption model.

The crisis (vital) model of consumption is limited to satisfying basic needs for food, clothing, and safety, when all consumer practices are aimed at survival. The needs of a higher level fade into the background and are not updated due to limited resources and capabilities.

The transitional consumption model was focused on restoring the structure and level of consumption that was achieved in the pre-war years. It had a differentiated character, corresponding to the class structure of society, the level of family income and the quality of the urban environment. An important role was played by the policy of the NEP, which gave rise to hopes for a return to the old way of life. The agents of pre-revolutionary consumer practices were also the Soviet, party and economic nomenclature, whose material support was focused on bourgeois standards of consumption.

The new (Soviet) model of consumption was ideally based on the principles of asceticism and minimalism. Modesty in everyday life was attributed to the leaders of the revolution, in particular V. Lenin, and corresponded to the general low level of income of the population and the economic development of society. In practice, consumption was diversified by the system of privileges and benefits formed initially, which led to the formation of nomenclature (elite) and mass (worker/peasant) consumption models already in the 1920s.

You can simply select and copy link from below text field.