Job and profession change are basic forms of social and labour mobility. Unstable working conditions are typical for less developed in socio-economic terms regions. The purpose of the study is to identify the degree of influence of precarious employment and other socio-demographic and economic factors on the probability of job change among Bashkortostan residents. The empirical basis of the study is a sociological survey of the Republic of Bashkortostan population. According to the results obtained, such factors as working in a private enterprise, self-employment, short work experience and the presence of a temporary employment contract increase the likelihood of job change. Income satisfaction, official wage and the absence of credit debt reduce the probability of job change. Respondents who want to improve their level of education and qualifications, as well as those who do not work within their specialty, tend to change their place of work more often. The conducted research has shown that changing a job, as a rule, does not contribute to improving the financial situation and working conditions of respondents.

job change, job security, precariat, precarious employment, socio-labour mobility

Job and profession change are basic forms of social and labour mobility. Changing a job is primarily influenced by the conditions and wages, as well as other features of employment. Precarious employment of the population depends on the level of socio-economic development of the region. Unstable working conditions are more often observed in relatively less developed in socio-economic terms Russian regions.

The purpose of this study is to identify the degree of influence of precarious employment and other socio-demographic and economic factors on job change by Bashkortostan residents. The change of jobs by the employed (including self-employed and individual entrepreneurs without employees) means their transition from one place of work to another (answers to the question “Have you had to change your job in the past five years?”).

Precarious employment is a feature of an employee’s labour position, which is characterized by variability and uncertainty about the duration of labour relations with the employer, unsatisfactory working conditions and wages, social insecurity, as well as difficulties in professional and career self-realization. The article considers the following main signs of precarious employment of the respondent as factors of job change: work without a permanent employment contract, low income, informal earnings (salary “in an envelope”), credit debts, work outside of one’s specialty obtained in a professional educational institution.

In this article, the author relies on a broad approach to determining the signs and content of precarious employment, referring to them, for instance, the lack of professional and career prospects or low wages, which is related to the living conditions and capital of the precariat. The search for another new job by the employed is considered by the author of this article and his colleagues as a sign of precarious employment, depending on unsatisfactory working conditions, non-guaranteed employment (temporary work, absence of an employment contract, etc.) and other socio-labour factors (for example, the desire for career growth) (Valiakhmetov et al. 2020). In this case, factors of precarious employment and socio-labour factors that do not relate to signs of precarious employment contribute to the search for another job by the employed.

Signs of precarious employment are present in many employed people of different social and labour positions (supervisor-subordinate, income level, etc.), in people with different living and working conditions. Therefore, it is quite difficult to determine its place in the class structure. Zhvitiashvili (2017) believes that the precariat cannot be classified, because it is difficult to identify its distinctive features or to determine its social composition and place in the class structure of society.

Bobkov and Veredyuk (2013: 45) distinguish the following signs of precarious employment: “uncertainty about the duration of employment relationships; hidden or unclear nature of employment relationships; variable legal status of employment relationships for each individual employee; unfavourable working conditions and risks of their deterioration; lack of control over employment conditions; volatility of the size and discreteness of obtaining labour income; decrease in the level of social protection of the employee”.

Popov and Soloveva (2019: 95) share the concepts of precarization as a process and precarious employment as a result of precarization. They define precarization of employment as “the process of destabilization of labour relations caused by their transformation, which manifests itself in a decrease in the stability of the position of employees and society as a whole”. In turn, precarious employment is “a condition in which an employee is forced into a situation of vulnerability and social insecurity associated with the conditions of the organization of his or her work” (Popov and Soloveva 2019: 98).

Toschenko (2020) considers unstable employment as one of the signs of precarious employment. He refers “an unguaranteed social and legal situation (absence or short-term terms of an employment contract)”; “specific forms and conditions of the organization of the labour process (duration of the working day (week, month, year, season))”; “arbitrary remuneration or its ersatz (payment in envelopes)”; “complete or partial absence of social guarantees”; “detachment from decision-making in their organization”; “socio-psychological perception of their social situation when employees do not see the prospects of civil (public) and personal (private) life satisfying them” to signs of precarious employment (Toschenko 2020: 11).

Scientists also rely on such criteria for attribution to the precariat as temporary and part-time employment, part-time employment for reasons other than by the employee’s initiative, forced unemployment, remote work, freelance employment (outstaffing), lack of an employment contract, lack of labour guarantees (limited working day, annual paid leave, sick leave, contributions to the pension fund, social insurance fund, etc.), work beyond one’s specialty, as well as the lack of “dedication to the profession” (change of profession and position). As a result, representatives of different strata and social groups of the Russian population by gender, age, education, and citizenship belong to the precariat. Men; young people, who work beyond one’s specialty, have lower qualifications and part-time or temporary contract; workers of science and higher education, who have part-time and temporary contract and migrant workers are distinguished (An employee… 2015).

Shkaratan et al. (2015) determine precariat based on a broad set of criteria. Firstly, these are the socio-labour features of the working position of the precariously employed: lack of job security, instability of the content of labour (change of field of activity, low-skilled work), as well as the duration of stay in unstable conditions. Secondly, these are the resources or capitals of the precariat: wages and other incomes that are lower than the median values of territorial communities; lack of a “safety cushion” in the form of property, real estate, financial assets, etc.; low level of social resources (mutually beneficial exchanges and mutual assistance); low position in the power hierarchy of society and in the organization; difficulties in maintaining a habitual lifestyle and social and market identity.

In the literature, precarious employment is associated with non-standard employment. The authors consider a deviation from standard employment “full-time employment based on an indefinite employment contract at an enterprise or organization, under the direct supervision of the employer or managers” as non–standard employment (Fedchenko et al. 2016: 28). At the same time, non-standard employment can be interpreted more broadly. It can include not only those who work on the basis of a non-standard contract, but also those who work in a non-standard mode whilst having a standard contract (Toshchenko 2020: 6).

In foreign literature, the concept of job insecurity is most often used, rather than precarious work. Job insecurity caused by a technological breakthrough (automation of production) affects the intentions of employees to look for another job. In the context of a technological breakthrough of an enterprise, employees who believe that they have a broad choice for changing their place of work («perceived labour mobility”) are more likely to consider the possibility of changing their job (Brougham and Haar 2020). Job insecurity as a factor of job changе is interrelated with the level of job satisfaction and working conditions, relationships with colleagues and management, as well as wages (Islam and Alam 2014). Job insecurity of temporary nursing workers and burnout at work increase their intention to quit (Laily et al. 2020). Job insecurity (fear of losing one’s job) eventually leads to an actual job change. In addition, those who think about the likely loss of their job have relatively high odds of eventually changing it (Richter et al. 2020). In turn, organizational support smooths out the effect of job insecurity and reduces the intention to leave their job (Di Stefano et al. 2020).

The interrelation of structural indicators of precarious work of the population and the level of socio-economic development of the region is shown by the authors on the example of Russian regions. Unstable working conditions are more typical for relatively less developed in socio-economic terms regions (Ustinova and Panov 2016). In addition to structural factors of precarious work, individual (subjective) factors are highlighted in scientific literature. Thus, older generations are forced into precarious employment due to changes in the structure of the labour market, while young people choose precarious labour voluntarily, arguing their choice with interest in work and other labour features. At the same time, freedom of choice is “illusory”, because it is due to the difficulties of finding the job desired (Tartakovskaya and Vanke 2019). The desire to change jobs increases if young workers do not see career and professional growth, are under unsatisfactory working conditions, earn little, etc. (Korolev 2010).

Relatively more often unskilled workers and office employees change their profession for customer service. According to the level of education, specialists with higher education are the least likely to change their profession (Popova 2018). The probability of job change also depends on the sector of economy. Private sector workers are more likely to change jobs than public sector workers. In the private sector, higher education increases the likelihood of changing the sector and place of work, and in the public sector, on the contrary, it reduces this probability. In the public sector, intangible factors are relatively more important: benefits, stability, working conditions. Regardless of the sector of the economy, men are more likely to change jobs, and those who have high wages and are satisfied with working conditions, on the contrary, are most likely not to change jobs (Klepikova 2016).

The conclusions of this article are based on data of the sociological survey of the Republic of Bashkortostan population conducted in October–December 2020 “Quality of employment and human development”.

The sample is representative of the following quota characteristics: socio-economic zone (city of Ufa, Central zone, Southern zone, Western zone, North-Western zone, North-Eastern zone, Ural zone), urban and rural population, gender, age (18 years and older), education.

Within the framework of the above-mentioned study, 4 main groups are distinguished by their main occupation: employees, the self-employed and individual entrepreneurs, non-working, as well as employers.

Among employees, we included respondents who work for monetary remuneration in an organization or for an individual, without having their own employees. Employment is a job in which a person enters into an explicit (written or oral) or implied employment contract that guarantees him or her a basic remuneration (in cash or in kind), which does not directly depend on the income of the unit where the person works¹. 76.6% of respondents turned out to be employees, 13.9% of respondents do not have a job (unemployed and non-working), and 9.5% are self–employed and entrepreneurs (see Fig. 1). When considering the employed, we included not only those who were working at the time of the survey, but also those who were on maternity leave or parental leave for up to 3 years, as well as on other paid or unpaid leave.

Figure 1.

Distribution of respondents by socio-labour status, % of all respondents

Individual entrepreneurs and the self-employed include people engaged in independent work, providing services and (or) selling the products actually produced without employees receiving remuneration for their work. The self-employed can include those employed both formally (registered individual entrepreneurs, members of production cooperatives, etc.) and informally.

If the respondent said that he or she does not need to work, cares for a sick/elderly person, does not work for health reasons, they skipped the questions for the non-working and the general questions of the questionnaire (see Fig. 2). These respondents answered only the questions of the socio-demographic block of the questionnaire. These groups are not part of the workforce. Accordingly, these groups of non-working individuals are not analyzed in this article.

Figure 2.

Distribution of non-working groups of respondents, % of all respondents

If the respondent chose one of the following answer options: “I lost my job before the coronavirus pandemic started and now I can’t get employed anywhere”; “I lost my job during the spread of the coronavirus infection”; “I lost my job a long time ago and have already given up trying to finding a new one” or “other”, they were instructed to proceed to the questionnaire for the non-working. Questions for the non-working were also answered by pensioners, students or pupils. Among these four groups of non-working were those who had been looking for a job in the last year at the time of the survey. To clarify this fact, an additional question was asked: “Did you look for a job during the last 12 months?”. As a result, the group of non-working persons included both unemployed people who had been looking for work for the last year at the time of the survey, and non-working people not belonging to the labour force, and who themselves quit or lost their jobs, but are not seeking employment for various reasons. Non-working groups of the population answered questions about employment in the past tense. These are the same questions, but about the respondents’ last place of work. Both the unemployed and the non-working, not included in the labour force, answered questions about employment in the past tense, as we needed to obtain information on the employment of as many respondents as possible. To build reliable logistic regression models, the responses of both the unemployed and the non-working were used. Thus, we were able to compare the features of employment and socio-labour mobility of the three main groups of Bashkortostan population: employees, the non-working population, as well as self-employed and individual entrepreneurs without employees.

A separate questionnaire was developed for each socio-labour group: employees, non-working persons, employers, as well as the self-employed and entrepreneurs. In order to ensure comparability of data, the main part of the questions is repeated in all three questionnaires (for employees, non-working persons, self-employed and individual entrepreneurs without employees). At the same time, questions are asked for each of the studied socio-demographic groups, taking into account their peculiarities and problems. The employers’ questionnaire differs significantly from the three questionnaires mentioned, therefore, there is no information about employers in this article, and they are not compared with other socio-labour groups.

The number of employees in the sample is 898 people. Of these, 107 people are working students and 94 people are working pensioners. The main sample of self-employed and small business owners included 111 people (other 42 individual entrepreneurs with employees did not answer the main questionnaire). The number of non-working respondents is 515 people (of which, in total, 163 people answered the questions that are analyzed in the article). In total, 1,172 people answered the main questionnaire.

In the article, the author identifies the following hypotheses:

• Belonging to a young age group increases the probability of job change.
• The absence of children increases the probability of job change.
• Work in the non-state sector of the economy contributes to the probability of job change more than work in the public sector.
• Work without a permanent employment contract increases the probability of job change.
• The lower the level of individual income, the higher the probability of job change.
• Work beyond the specialty increases the probability of job change.

Employees were more likely than the self-employed and non-working to change their place of residence because of work (see Fig. 3). Most likely, this is due to the greater activity of employees in the labour market, since they are most dependent on their working position. Employees have less freedom and independence in improving working conditions and increasing wages, unlike self-employed and individual entrepreneurs. Self-employed and non-working respondents were twice as likely to change their job due to the work of their spouses. This suggests that among them there is a relatively higher proportion of people whose employment depends on the career strategy of their spouses.

Figure 3.

Answers to the question “Have you personally changed your place of residence (for six months or more) in connection to work during the last ten years?” depending on the socio-labour status, % of all respondents

The place of work over the past 5 years has been changed most often by non-working respondents (see Fig. 4). The self–employed are less likely to do so than other socio-labour groups. It is obvious that the self-employed are relatively less often prone to changing their job, because many of them are not hired for additional work, but work only for themselves. Moreover, in this matter we are not talking about changing a profession (specialization) or a branch of the economy. Non-working respondents occupy the most unstable position of the groups considered in the article. As will be shown below, this is due to both individual motives for refusing employment (no interest in work, dissatisfaction with working conditions and wages, work and rest hours, etc.) and objective reasons for the inability to find employment at the desired job (lack of vacancies, lack of experience).

Figure 4.

Answers to the question “Have you had to change your job in the last five years?” depending on the socio-labour status, % of all respondents

As can be seen from Table 1, the most common reasons for changing jobs, according to respondents, are dissatisfaction with salary, position, schedule and content of work, as well as dismissals, personal reasons and relocations. Unlike employees, non-working respondents and the self-employed are twice as likely to point to poor relations with management as the reason for dismissal from the last job. One of the motives for the self-employed to change their job may be their desire to work without superiors, just for themselves. The self-employed and non-working were also more likely to change their job or quit because of ceasing their employment contract. Most likely, some part of the self-employed preferred to work for themselves in search of a new employment. Non-working respondents, in turn, either could not find a suitable job, or simply did not want to. The self-employed are much more likely than the other groups considered in the article to point to personal and family reasons for changing jobs, which could also affect their transition to the self-employed group.

The non-working also had the highest rate of job change in the last 5 years (see Table 2). Let’s take a closer look at why they changed jobs. Among those who were offered a job, 22 people (33%) refused because they were not satisfied with working conditions, salary, work and rest hours, registration at work, etc.; 17 people (26%) refused because they were not interested in the work; the remaining answer options add up to 41% (27 people). Among those who were denied employment, 20 people (26%) believe that this is due to the fact that there were no vacancies; 13 people (17%) replied that the employer informed them that they did not have sufficient experience; other responses add up to 57% (33 people).

Employees have moved up and down in the qualification and job structure over the past 10 years to a relatively greater extent (see Table 3). At the same time, they moved more often than others in the horizontal plane. This is due to their professional and career activity in the labour market, as well as the instability of working conditions. It is worth noting that the share of non-working people who have moved up over the past 10 years is also relatively high. As noted above, they either choose such a temporary job themselves, or experience relatively great difficulties in finding a suitable permanent job.

The self-employed are less likely to change their employment status, since they try to maintain the status of self-employed. However, during the coronavirus pandemic, there were risks of job loss for the self-employed. 38% of self-employed and individual entrepreneurs were confident that they would not lose their source of income (business), and 45% believed that this was quite likely (the rest found it difficult to answer). 69% of the self-employed did not want to change the direction of their business. 59% of the self-employed were confident in their future and 28% were not sure.

Although there are differences in the proportion of the local population who have changed jobs over the past 5 years among to the socio-economic zones of Bashkortostan (see Fig. 5), they are not so vast. In the Ural zone and in the city of Ufa, the percentage of respondents who have changed jobs over the past 5 years is slightly higher. In the capital, this may be due to a relatively high level of business activity. And in the Ural zone, this is most likely due to the unstable socio-economic situation in the districts and cities of this zone and difficulties with employment.

Figure 5.

Answers to the question “Have you had to change your job in the last five years?” depending on the socio-economic zone of the Republic of Bashkortostan, % of all respondents

The most common and significant reasons for changing jobs for all the considered socio-labour groups are their dissatisfaction with the conditions of employment in the organization. At the same time, non-working respondents occupy the most unstable position, since they have changed their place of work more often than others over the past 5 years at the time of the survey.

In order to draw solid conclusions about the factors influencing the change of place of work and profession, logistic regressions were constructed. Data analysis was carried out in the STATISTICA 12 program. Almost all variables in the questionnaire are categorical. To increase the predictive power of the models, all possible independent variables were added for each block of survey questions that do not lead to a “zero pivot element”. Some statistically insignificant categories (answer options) are not listed in tables with regression models. The questions took into account the answers of non-working people who had a job in the past, provided that they answered the question “Have you had to change your place of work in the last five years?”, which is a dependent variable in the models.

Among the socio-demographic characteristics, it is worth noting such statistically significant indicators as gender, age, marital status, the presence of children in general and the presence of minor children in particular (see Table 4). Men are more likely to change jobs than women. The older a person is, the less likely he or she is to change jobs. Divorced persons and respondents who do not have children under the age of 18 have relatively high odds of changing jobs.

Men are more mobile than women and change jobs more often. On the one hand, this is due to gender inequality in the labour market. On the other hand, this may be due to the fact that men want to earn more. The older the respondents, the less likely they are to change their job. Of course, with age, mobility in the labour market decreases, there is greater stability in contrast to the youth. The divorced and respondents who have never been married, according to our data, are more likely to change their jobs than respondents who are in registered or unregistered marriage. Marriage prevents a person from changing his or her employment status. The absence of children, on the contrary, contributes to greater socio-labour mobility of respondents from Bashkortostan.

As can be seen from Table 5, the odds of changing jobs are influenced by factors such as the type of enterprise, the number of people at the enterprise, the length of service at the organization for employees, registration at the workplace, as well as working conditions when changing jobs. So, working in a private enterprise and a temporary employment contract have a positive effect on the probability of job change. And working in a state organization negatively affects the odds of changing jobs. The longer the work experience, the less likely it is that an employee will change jobs. Working at a very large enterprise also reduces the probability of job change.

The position at the main place of work does not affect the odds of changing jobs, because in the first model estimates for all categories are not statistically significant: managers, specialists and employees, skilled workers and unskilled workers. In the second model, the estimate of unskilled workers is significant, but not logical.

Respondents who choose a flexible work schedule, if they do decide to change their job, have low odds of doing so. Most likely, this is due to the fact that the respondents are satisfied with a flexible schedule, and they are not inclined to frequent job changes. In turn, those who prefer to work under a contract without registration in the workbook have relatively high odds of changing their job. Informal work is one way or another associated with frequent job changes.

In general, the presence of an employee in unstable employment conditions contributes to a purposeful or forced change of their place of work. As the main sign of precarious employment, it is worth noting a temporary employment contract. Working at a non-governmental organization also pushes the employee out of his or her working position. With the increase in work experience, the odds of changing jobs decrease, which indicates that employees remain in their working position, because they are satisfied with job conditions.

The financial situation and wages are also considered as signs of precarious employment: the level and dynamics of income, credit debts, informal wages (see Table 6). The issue of confidence in the future is included in the models due to the fact that this question belongs to the block of questions about the financial situation in the questionnaire, and the very logic of the answers in the questionnaire contributes to this.

Employees who receive the entire salary officially, most likely, will not change jobs. If wages increased before the pandemic, then this factor also reduces the odds of changing jobs.

Both the low-income group and the high-income group have positive regression estimates. This suggests that it is difficult to claim the presence of impact of this indicator on the probability of job change.

The prospect of improving their financial situation over the next year increases the odds of changing jobs. The lack of loans, on the contrary, contributes to the consolidation of employed and unoccupied respondents in their employment position.

Respondents who want to “earn a lot, even without special guarantees for the future,” are more likely than others to change jobs². The degree of confidence of respondents in the future, in turn, does not affect the odds of changing jobs.

Thus, the financial situation also affects the odds of changing jobs. Respondents receiving a “white” salary are not in the informal economy, and there is little chance that they will change their job. Wage growth and lack of loans reduce the probability of job change. At the same time, the respondents’ opinion about the prospects for improving their financial situation seems contradictory. The surveyed residents of the republic, who believe that their financial situation will improve over the next year, have relatively higher odds of changing their jobs than those respondents who believe in the stability of their financial situation. Most likely, respondents associate the improvement of their financial situation with a new place of work. In addition, the mindset of improving one’s well-being without guarantees for the future also contributes to changing one’s job.

The discrepancy between the main work of the received specialty is one of the indicators of precarious employment. It is obvious that work within one’s specialty contributes to a greater consolidation of a person at his job (see Table 7). In addition, the fact and experience of studying at advanced training courses in their specialty over the past 3 years also reduces the odds of changing their job³. If the respondent believes that his or her level of education is insufficient for him or her, then in this case he or she has higher odds of changing jobs (although this conclusion can only be drawn from the first model).

The desire to get a higher level of education, as well as to get additional education in their specialty, slightly increase the odds of working respondents to change jobs.

Respondents who moved to work in another structural unit, department, workshop and (or) completely changed their field of activity also have comparatively higher odds of changing their job. In turn, promotion or transfer to a lower position, according to our data, does not affect the odds of changing jobs.

Thus, the desire to improve their qualifications, educational level and work in their specialty pushes respondents to change jobs. In addition, a change of the field of activity, as well as horizontal qualification and job mobility within the organization is also accompanied by a change of job.

Among the socio-demographic factors of job change, hypotheses that belonging to a young age group and absence of children increase the probability of job change were confirmed.

The hypothesis that work in the non-state sector of the economy contributes to the probability of job change more than work in the public sector was confirmed.

The hypothesis that working without a permanent employment contract contributes to changing jobs by respondents was partially confirmed. It can be argued that respondents working on the basis of a temporary employment contract are likely to change their place of work. However, it is impossible to talk about the impact of the absence of an employment contract among respondents on their odds of changing jobs.

The hypothesis that working beyond one’s specialty contributes to changing a job has been confirmed. Based on the results of the analysis, it can be concluded that work beyond the scope of one’s specialty received at a professional educational institution increases their odds of changing their job.

The hypothesis that the lower the level of individual income of respondents, the higher their odds of changing jobs, was partially confirmed. It was revealed that two groups by the level of individual income (“from 10,001 to 15,000 rubles” and “from 40,001 rubles and more”) have almost identical odds of changing their job. Although the monthly earnings of 40 thousand rubles and above are quite high for Bashkortostan. At the same time, respondents whose wages have increased over the past year at the time of the survey have negative odds of changing their job.

Based on the results of the study, it is difficult to conclude whether changing jobs contributes to reducing the spread of precarious employment among the employed population of the Russian region. It can be argued that changing a job, at least, does not contribute to improving the financial situation of the precariously employed, and may even worsen it. Thus, among respondents (employees, the non-working, self-employed and entrepreneurs) who have changed their job over the past 5 years, 47% indicated a deterioration in their financial situation due to the coronavirus pandemic, and among respondents who did not change their job, 39.7% noted that their financial situation has worsened (Pearson’s chi-squared = 35.3; p-value < 0.01). Among those who have changed their job over the past 5 years, there is a greater proportion of respondents who indicated a decrease in the level of wages over the past year at the time of the survey (21.6%) than among those who have not changed their place of work over the past 5 years (15.9%). 16.2% of the respondents who changed their place of work and 17.8% who did not say that their salary increased (Pearson’s chi–squared = 9.8; p-value > 0.05).

It is difficult to say to what extent a change of job leads to an improvement in working conditions and other employment features of the local population. However, to understand this situation, we can give an example of the answers to the question “Do you think your employer at the main place of work complies with the terms of the employment contract?” (only employees answered this question). Among respondents who have changed jobs over the past 5 years, 84.4% replied that the employer “fully complies” or “mostly complies” with the terms of the employment contract, and 6.9% replied that “mostly does not comply” and “completely does not comply”. 90.2% of respondents who did not change their job said that the employer mostly or completely complies with the terms of the employment contract, and 5.7% replied that the employer does not comply mostly or completely with the terms of the employment contract (Pearson’s chi-squared = 34.8; p-value < 0.01). In general, a job change is not accompanied by an improvement in working conditions, and even, on the contrary, worsens the situation of the employed who have changed their job.

The highest level of socio-labour mobility based on respondents’ estimates of the frequency of changing positions over the past 10 years in the qualification vertical structure and in the horizontal structure is observed among employees. Although non-working respondents were relatively more likely to change jobs due to the fact that they lost their jobs or quit voluntarily over the past 5 years. The self-employed and individual entrepreneurs, on the contrary, were the least likely to change their job in 5 and 10 years, respectively. This is due to the specifics of them working mainly or completely for themselves. Since the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic, most of them have tried to keep their business and work. At the same time, there was a great potential for mobility: 45% of the self-employed admitted a relatively high probability of losing their main source of income. At the same time, the self-employed were quite confident in their future regarding work and their financial situation.

Labour indicators such as work at a private enterprise and a temporary employment contract have a positive effect on the probability of job change. The relatively long work experience of respondents, on the contrary, reduces this probability, securing a person in their work position. Informal earnings and the presence of credit debts increase the probability of job change. Dissatisfaction with the level of education, the desire to improve qualifications and work within specialty should also be noted as factors pushing respondents out of the workplace.

According to our data, changing jobs does not contribute to improving the financial situation and working conditions of respondents. People who change their job are in conditions of unstable (precarious) employment. However, this issue needs to be considered in more detail in further studies.

The results of the study apply to the population of the Republic of Bashkortostan. In this article, the author does not consider many aspects of socio-labour mobility: a change of profession and (or) specialty, the transition from the group of the employed population to the unemployed and (or) economically inactive population, etc. The author does not analyze other indicators of precarious employment: socio-psychological factors, values, social, household and working conditions, social capital, etc.

This study was supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (project 20–011–00934 “Human development under the conditions of socio-labour precarization”).

Rosstat Order No. 445 of 30.06.2017 “On approval of the Basic methodological and organizational provisions for conducting a sample survey of the workforce” (ed. dated 12/30/2020). URL: http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_219641 (in Russian, accessed on 15.04.2021).

Marcel Salavatovich Turakayev, Ph.D. (sociology), senior lecturer at the Faculty of Philosophy and Sociology, Bashkir State University; senior researcher at the Laboratory for Regional Studies of Quality of Life of the Centre of Russian Regions Research of the Institute of Sociology of the Federal Center of Theoretical and Applied Sociology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Ufa, Russia. E-mail: mturakaev@gmail.com