RESPONSES TO THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC IN THE ARCTIC: COMPARING THE WAYS OF ORGANIZING VOLUNTARY WORK IN NORTHWEST RUSSIA AND NORTHERN NORWAY

Research communication

doi:10.37614/2220-802X.2.2022.76.010

 Download article

 Vigdis Nygaard1, Larissa A. Riabova2

1Norwegian Research Centre –– NORCE, Alta, Norway, viny@norceresearch.no

2Luzin Institute for Economic Studies, Kola Science Centre of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Apatity, Russia, larissar@iep.kolasc.net.ru

1ORCID 0000-0001-8077-2972, 2ORCID 0000-0001-7923-0367

Abstract. This Research Communication presents preliminary results of an ongoing Russian-Norwegian research project about volunteer work in two border regions in the Arctic –– Troms and Finnmark county in Norway and Murmansk oblast in Russia. Here, we aim to provide a deeper understanding of the ways in which volunteer work with vulnerable groups was organized during the initial stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in two national and regional settings, the role and scope of volunteer work during the pandemic in the two regions, and how this activity is framed by structural and political differences between Norway and Russia. The study adds knowledge to the field of implementation of national COVID-19 strategies in diverse regional settings and understanding the role of volunteerism in crisis response in providing for the health and well-being of vulnerable groups in the Arctic. Our study reveals that both in Norway and Russia responses to the pandemic include mobilization of volunteers and the rise in the volunteer movement, but volunteerism has different traditions and scopes in Norway and Russia. Well-established NGOs in Troms and Finnmark county were mobilized to act when the pandemic hit, and they took on new responsibilities for vulnerable groups. Such organizations were less developed in Murmansk oblast, and in order to effectively respond to the pandemic, new voluntary structures were quickly established in the form of united regional and municipal volunteer centres in addition to existing organizations. Our research shows that volunteerism is one of the most efficient tools for crisis response and that it adds an indispensable value to reducing the workload of public health and social care institutions in promoting health and well-being for vulnerable groups. Voluntary structures on the Norwegian side appear to be resilient and flexible to meet the needs of the target groups, while volunteerism in Murmansk oblast shows exceptional strength to grow, formalize, and mobilize during a very short period within crisis response.

Keywords: COVID-19, Arctic, voluntary work, voluntary structures, vulnerable groups

Acknowledgements: this Research Communication is based on a Norwegian-Russian research project No. 303247 “Adapting to a changing society. The case of civil society in the Murmansk region”, financed by the Norwegian Research Council. The authors thank all local research participants for sharing their knowledge with us.

For citation: Nygaard V., Riabova L. A. Responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in the Arctic: comparing the ways of organizing voluntary work in Northwest Russia and Northern Norway. Sever i rynok: formirovanie ekonomicheskogo poryadka [The North and the Market: Forming the Economic Order], 2022, no. 2, pp. 124–130. doi:10.37614/2220-802X.2.2022.76.010

References

  1. Greer L., King E. J., da Fonseca E. M., Peralta-Santos A. The comparative politics of COVID-19: The need to understand government responses // Global Public Health. 2020. Vol. 15, issue 9. P. 1413–1416. DOI: 10.1080/17441692.2020.1783340
  2. King E. J., Dudina V. I. COVID-19 in Russia: Should we expect a novel response to the novel coronavirus? // Global Public Health. 2021. Vol. 16, issues 8–9. P. 1237–1250. DOI: 10.1080/17441692.2021.1900317
  3. Askim J., Bergström T. Between lockdown and calm down. Comparing the COVID-19 responses of Norway and Sweden. Local Government Studies. 2021. DOI: 1080/03003930.2021.1964477
  4. Tilly C., Tilly C. Capitalist work and labor markets. Smelser, N. and Swedberg, R. (eds). Handbook of Economic Sociology. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1994. P. 283–313.
  5. Wilson J., Volunteering // Annual Review of Sociology. 2000. No. 26 (1). P. 215–240.
  6. Dam K. W., Bratshaug A. L. Frivillighets-Norge skaper store verdier. Ideelle og frivillige organisasjoner, (Volunteering-Norway creates huge values. Non-profit and voluntary organisations) Statistisk Sentralbyrå, Oslo, 2010. https://www.ssb.no/nasjonalregnskap-og-konjunkturer/artikler-og-publikasjoner/frivillighet-norge-skaper-store-verdier
  7. Shapovalova L. D. Gosudarstvo i grazhdanskoe obshhestvo v 2010-e gody: razvitie zakonodatel’stva ob obshhestvennyh ob#edinenijah (The state and civil society in the 2010s: development of legislation on public associations) // Istorija sovremennosti. Informacionnye resursy, metody i issledovatel’skie praktiki v Rossii i za rubezhom. Doklady Mezhdunarodn. nauch.-prakticheskoj konf. (Moskva, 28–29 nojabrja 2019 g.) (The history of modernity. Information resources, methods and research practices in Russia and abroad. Reports of the International Scientific and Practical Conference (Moscow, November 28–29, 2019). Moscow, 2019. P. 417–427.
  8. Tarasenko A. Mitigating the Social Consequences of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Russia’s Social Policy Response. Russian Analytical digest. No. 263, 15 February 2021. DOI: 10.3929/ethz-b-000468854
  9. NOU 2021:6 (Government document). Myndighetenes håndtering av koronapandemien (The Authorities’ handling of the COVID-19 pandemic). 2021. https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/5d388acc92064389b2a4e1a449 c5865e/no/pdfs/nou202120210006000dddpdfs.pdf
  10. Arnesen D., Sivesind K. H. Frivillighet og koronakrisen. (Volunteering and the corona crisis) Senter for forskning på sivilsamfunn og frivillig sektor. Oslo/Bergen 2021.
  11. Tromsø Røde kors. Årsmelding. (Annual report of Tromsø Red Cross). 2020.
  12. Sørly R., Kårtveit B., Nygaard V., Normann A. K., Ivanova L., Britvina S., Riabova L. Adapting to the unpredictable: The story of a Norwegian-Russian study of NGOs in the Murmansk region during a pandemic // Qualitative social work. 2021. Vol. 20 (1–2). P. 312–319. DOI: 10.1177/1473325020973291