Север и рынок. 2022, № 2.

СЕВЕР И РЫНОК: формирование экономического порядка. 2022. № 2. С. 124-130. Sever i rynok: formirovanie ekonomicheskogo poryadka [The North and the Market: Forming the Economic Order], 2022, no. 2, pp. 124-130. НАУЧНЫЕ СООБЩЕНИЯ • What was the role and scope of volunteer work with vulnerable groups during the COVID-19 pandemic in the case regions? • How can different political structures and governmental responses to the pandemic explain differences in organizing volunteer work in the case regions? Methods and data This Research Communication is based on the analysis of official and media texts describing the national and regional developments of the COVID crisis and the role of volunteer work. We also refer to official statistics, surveys, and research literature available on the topic. Additionally, we have conducted interviews with NGO leaders and volunteer personnel by phone and face-to-face. The data cover the period from March 2020 to June 2021. Volunteering as a concept in the research literature Volunteer work is defined as unpaid work provided to parties to whom the worker owes no contractual, familial, or friendship obligations [4]. Volunteering is a complex phenomenon that spans a variety of types of activities, organizations, and sectors [5]. A vast range of literature focuses on the characteristics of the helpers, while empirical analysis often focuses on the "laws of volunteering", explaining the occurrence or non-occurrence of the phenomenon [5]. Volunteer work with vulnerable groups takes place within formal registered non-governmental organizations as well as in informal settings. This study elaborates on both categories because the formalizations of volunteerism in Russia and Norway are quite different. The economic value of volunteering also differs. Dam & Bratshaug [6] estimate voluntary work in Norway at 4 % of the gross domestic product, while the corresponding figure from Russia is 0,9 % [7]. Different political systems and crisis management response Greer et al. [1] proposed four areas of focus to understand the reasons for different governmental COVID-19 responses, namely pre-existing social policies and the policies enacted for crisis management, regime type (democracy, autocracy, or hybrid regimes), formal political institutions (federalism, presidentialism), and state capacity (including control over healthcare systems). Looking at these four areas, it is clear that Norway and Russia fall into different categories. Russia employs a centralized, federally coordinated, quick mobilization-type response involving all governance levels and many sectors. There are two federal bodies developing measures to combat the pandemic crisis — the Operational Headquarters established in late January 2020 and chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister, and the Coordination Council organized in March 2020 and led by the Prime Minister. In both structures, Rospotrebnadzor (Federal Service for Supervision of Consumer Rights Protection and Human Welfare) and the Ministry of Health have a strong advisory role. Federal measures include national regulations (such as the enforcement of the national non-working days), mobilization of the healthcare system, economic support and so on. In mid-March 2020, regional COVID-19 operational headquarters were activated in all 85 regions of Russia. The headquarters are led by the regional governors and include representatives from many regional bodies of state power. The headquarters coordinate efforts to combat the pandemic and prepare decisions and recommendations for citizens, organizations, the state, and municipal bodies. Also, regional centres for information monitoring on COVID-19 have been established. Regional authorities make the decisions to strengthen or ease restrictive measures such as the enforcement of lockdowns, emergency regimes, or stay-at-home orders [2] and implement federal support measures like social benefits and tax reductions [8]. Regional governments maintain close contact with local authorities, especially on social policy matters, and are responsible for healthcare in the municipalities. Local governments implement national and regional regulations and have powers to impose their own restrictive or preventive measures in the communities. Municipal authorities have the responsibility for creating conditions for the provision of medical care, implementing measures to preserve people's health in emergency situations, following up on citizens in need, etc. They also cooperate with industry and businesses to support the local health sector and voluntary structures. As a federal state with a centralized political system, Russia has the capacity for mobilization of the healthcare system and other sectors, and this capacity was used to respond to the pandemic. The federal and regional levels played a coordinating and resource-providing role in the COVID response, with the regional level playing a key executive role. Referring to a poll about coping with the COVID threat, about 40 % of the population believe that the government is doing its best to combat the pandemic, while 27 % consider the government's measures excessive. In Russia, new bodies were established to combat the pandemic in addition to existing bodies. In Norway, however, the authorities assigned with specific responsibilities in normal circumstances have held the same responsibilities during the pandemic. The Ministry of Health and Care Services, which has national responsibility for health preparedness, declared a health crisis and activated other authorities like the Norwegian Directorate of Health that coordinates mitigation efforts © Ныгор В., Рябова Л. А., 2022 126