Modern society is considered developed not by its military “muscle tone” or ideological impact, but primarily by its professional and work force potential. Professional level proves the strongest motive force sending up the social ladder individuals as well as whole ethnic communities. Representative ethnic proportion at the top quite often reflects precisely the status of a given ethnic group. Censuses are the best way to monitor the ratio of managerial staff, experts, and businessmen among various ethnic groups and its dynamics.
We used precisely this approach in carrying out a comparative analysis of the professional features of seven largest ethnic communities in Ukraine: Ukrainian, Russian, Jewish, Belarus, Moldovan, Bulgarian, and Polish.
Our studies show that managerial staff and expert (i.e., requiring post-secondary or secondary education) ratios are as follows: 26% of the populace; 24% Ukrainians; 32% Russians; 63% Jews; 25% Belarus; 13% Moldovans; 22% Bulgarians, and 23% Poles. In other words, Jews placed first, Russians second, Belarus third, Ukrainians fourth, Poles fifth, Bulgarian sixth, and Moldovan seventh.
It is interesting to compare Ukrainian indices with those in the United States and Canada, particularly with regard to Ukrainians, Russians, and Jews. US, Canadian, and Soviet ethnic policies differ noticeably. The US melting pot concept, Canadian multiculturalism, and Soviet national-territorial autonomies (formally with their own state systems and ethnic borders drawn on a political map using a ruler) - these are the three basic ethnopolitical models we know today.
In the United States, 1970 census pointed to an average 22% managerial staff, experts, and businessmen of the Caucasian populace. Of these 48% were Aszkenazy Jews, 34% Russians, and 20% Ukrainians. US sociologists say that in the early 1970s Ukrainians were placed last but one among the immigrants from Central and Eastern Europe at the top of social and professional hierarchy.
In Canada, Jews were placed the lowest as unskilled labor and in the early 1960s they ranked among the first in socially advanced professional categories, stepping ahead of English Canadians, let alone the rest of the populace. Most ethnic Ukrainians and particularly Russians rated as unskilled labor.
In Canada, the ratio of Ukrainians with college and university degrees (which provide access to the Establishment) was a mere 6% in 1971. However, ten years later this index noticeably increased, including 3% in managerial staff and in business (at that time Ukrainians constituted 2.2% of the Canadian populace). 13% of Ukrainians had university degrees (statistically 12% of all Canadians were university graduates).
The Ukrainian Canadian community at large is remarkably dynamic in terms of social and professional structure: in 1971-81 the ratio of managerial staff rose more than twofold (from 3% to 7%). In other words, already in the 1980s Ukrainian Canadians matched the social standard and even surpassed the average value by certain indicators.
Studies of the social and professional status of Ukrainians, Russians, and Jews in Ukraine show that their ratios in the social and professional hierarchies are the same as in the US and Canada. Without doubt, this is primarily explained by historical and cultural ethnic specifics, but it is also true that the professional, occupational sphere is one of the most important elements of national culture.
In the early 1990s, Ukraine, already as an independent multiethnic state, entered a protracted period of social transformation. Apparently, such deep-going changes cannot but cause tangible shifts in employment statistics, social mobility, and the social-professional structure of these ethnic groups. The very basis of social differentiation has changed: whereas under the Soviets an individual’s status was determined by education, profession or sector of the economy in which he worked, today this status is increasingly dependent of one’s income (regardless of its source). However, given current persistent cultural, spiritual, and socioeconomic crises, one’s financial success is not always based on the values that traditionally identify a man’s standing in any civilized country.






