This article presents the results of a sociological study aimed at examining the strategies that people living in apartment complexes choose in terms of economic behavior in a situation when funds are being collected for major renovation. Under Russian federal law № 271-FZ, home owners must participate in major renovations of community property in apartment complexes on conditions of state co-financing. As a result, citizens are involved in producing a common good in the form of major housing renovation. Given such a situation, people could opt for both pro-social, based on monthly payments for major renovations, and egotistical strategies, which involve refusal to make mandatory payments. Analyzing the economic behavior of people living in apartment complexes in the vein of J. Coleman’s rational choice theory allowed for establishing three groups of factors which define the choice of either pro-social or egotistical strategies. The first group of factors acts on an individual level and defines the proportion of those gains and losses considered by an individual when deciding on whether to transfer funds for major renovations. These include subjective evaluation of the building’s technical state and financial status. The second group of factors is linked to expectations regarding the actions of other residents in terms of collecting funds for major renovations. The third group of factors manifests itself during interactions between apartment owners and the corporate actors implementing the major renovation program. Trust towards these actors becomes a crucial factor. The influence of the highlighted factors on choosing economic behavior strategies when it comes to collecting funds for major renovations was researched during a sociological study conducted in Yaroslavl using questionnaire method in 2015 and 2018. 600 respondents were surveyed in each of these studies. It was determined that the economic behavior of home owners in apartment complexes is subject to the following strategies: pro-social (“cooperation”, “conformal”) and egotistical (“maximin”, “competitive”, “aggressive”). When comparing the results of both studies, an increase in the amount of proponents of pro-social strategies is apparent. The highlighted tendency corresponds to an increase in the amount of funds collected for major renovations. Pro-social strategies are preferred by residents with average or high financial status, who consider the quality of completed major renovations to be good. These people are convinced that other residents transfer monthly payments in full, and they trust the governmental institutions implementing the major renovation program.

housing and communal services, capital repair, the problem of defaulter, economic behavior, prosocial strategy, egoistic strategies, belief, financial position

Balliet D. Communication and Cooperation in Social Dilemmas: A Meta-Analytic Review. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2010; 54; 1: 39–57.

Barbashin M. Y. 2014. Dilemmas of Choice in Uncertainty and Institutional Strategies in the Game Theory (Marriage Problem). Gumanitarny ezhegodnik = Yearbook of Humanities, 2014; 13: 221–233 (In Russ.).

Coleman J.S. Social Theory, Social Research and a Theory of Action. The American Journal of Sociology, 1986; vol. 91, 6: 1309–1335.

Dawes R.M. Social dilemmas. Annual Review of Psychology, 1980; 31: 169–193.

Dijk E.V., Wit A.P., Wilke H.A.M., Kwaadsteniet de E.W. On the Importance of Equality in Social Dilemmas. In: Social Decision-Making: Social Dilemmas, Social Values and Ethical Judgments. Ed. by R.M. Kramer, A.E. Tenbrunsel, M. Bazerman. New York, London: Routledge, 2010: 47–69.

Economics and Sociology of Trust. Ed. by Y.V. Veselov. Saint-Petersburg: M. Kovalevsky Soc. Society, 2004: 192 (In Russ.).

Glukhova M.F. Management of Social Resources in Conditions of Uncertainty. Vestnik PAGS, 2014; vol. 45, 6: 4–9.

Housing and Communal Service Reform. FSRZhKH Official website. Available at: https://www.reformagkh.ru/analytics#overhaul-section [accessed: 21.02.2019].

Muzdybaev K. Social Dilemmas and Ways of their Solution. Zhurnal sociologii i social'noy antropologii = Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology, 2007; 10; 2: 99–122 (In Russ.).

Nureev R.M. Public Choice Theory. Moscow: SU HSE publ., 2005: 531 (In Russ.).

Olson M. The Logic of Collective Actions. Public Goods and Group Theory. Moscow: FEI, 1995:174 (In Russ.).

Ostrom E. Analyzing collective action. International Association of Agricultural Economists, 2010; vol. 41, 1: 155–166.

Pytkin A.N., Zaripova G.M. Modern aspects of housing and communal services reform. Vestnik UGUES. Nauka, obrazovanie, economika. Serija: economika = USUES Bulletin. Ser. Economics, 2014; 1: 71–74 (In Russ.).

Samuelsen Ch. D., Warton-Rodriguez K.M. Group Discussion and Cooperation in Social Dilemmas: Does the Medium Matter. In: Social Decision-Making: Social Dilemmas, Social Values and Ethical Judgments. Ed. by R.M. Kramer, A.E. Tenbrunsel, M. Bazerman. New York, London: Routledge, 2010: 13–46.

Shveri R. Theoretical Sociology of James Coleman: Analytical Survey. Sociologichesky zhurnal = Sociological Journal, 1996; 1–2: 62–81 (In Russ.).

Simpson B. Social identity and cooperation in social dilemmas. Rationality and society, 2006; 18; 4: 443–470.

Tolstova Y.N. Measurement in Sociology. Moscow: KDU, 2007: 288 (In Russ.).