Achieving regulatory legitimacy in volatile institutional contexts: the case of Russian non-profits

Abstract

This article examines organizational legitimacy within a volatile socio-political context. Drawing on qualitative data from non-profit organizations (NPOs) in the Russian Federation, we explore the question of how organizations gain regulatory legitimacy in such an uncertain and hostile socio-political context. Our study highlights that in such a context, the state often fails to grant regulatory legitimacy to NPOs. In response, NPOs seek to achieve regulatory legitimacy via symbolic acts and supplement these with a range of substantive activities. Such actions help demonstrate organizational effectiveness to the government and generate trust with individuals in the regional state apparatus. We show that regulatory legitimacy requires a more nuanced examination in contexts that make it difficult for organizations to routinize its attainment. Thus, our article contributes to legitimacy theory by exploring how key aspects of organizational legitimacy are conditioned and constituted by the socio-political context.

Adapting to survive or thrive? Civil society, the third sector and social movements in ‘post-Soviet’ spaces: an introduction to the themed section

“…It also illustrates how, as a result, activities are often focused on challenging and changing practices rather than changing policy: that is, change within the boundaries set by the state, even activities that are camouflaging wider changes to the institutional context (Crotty and Ljubownikow, 2020;Pape and Skokova, 2022). As such, it aligns with the first two papers and the extent to which literature in both Russian and other similar contexts illustrates how in hostile and repressive contexts civil society actors focus/are forced to focus on social or welfare activities (or similar activities that do not elicit a negative elite response), rather than those that directly engage in activities challenging institutional arrangements (Kulmala, 2016;Dai and Spires, 2018;Claus and Tracey, 2020;Crotty and Ljubownikow, 2020;Ljubownikow and Crotty, 2023;Pape and Skokova, 2022;Neuberger et al, 2023). In shining a light on how subject understandings inform actions, the paper illustrates the use of perception/portrayal of competence to make claims against the state and change local practices (Zeng et al, 2019;Crotty and Ljubownikow, 2020).…”

“…In so doing, Davidenko and Iarskaia-Smirnova also illustrate the limited spaces for engagement that civil society actors have, mirroring others that explored advocacy in this context (Ljubownikow and Crotty, 2016;Pape and Skokova, 2022). The authors illustrate that a key characteristic of a repressive regime is legislative ambiguity (Howell, 2012;Ljubownikow and Crotty, 2016;Dai and Spires, 2018) which allows the state and its governance system flexibility in enforcement or regulation (something Ledeneva (2006) terms suspended punishment in the context of Russia), ensuring everyone is being kept on their toes, as well as widespread acquiescence just in case (Ljubownikow and Crotty, 2023). However, Davidenko and Iarskaia-Smirnova demonstrate that this can also provide opportunities for civil society actors to engage with the state and its administrative system.…”

“…Yet, research focusing on specific contexts within the 'post-Soviet' space also illustrates much more nuanced insights and experiences of civil society actors in the former Soviet Union states (Osborne and Kaposvari, 1997;Pickvance, 1998;Lenzi, 2002;Beichelt, 2004;Krasynska and Martin, 2017;Astapova et al, 2022;Martus, 2023). This has broadened our understanding of civil society generally, illustrating the range of tactics actors might use to engage in such a hostile context (Stepanenko, 2006;Blinnikov and Lindsey, 2010;Moser and Skripchenko, 2018;Tysiachniouk et al, 2018;Fröhlich and Skokova, 2020;Channell-Justice, 2022;Ljubownikow and Crotty, 2023). how such actors engage to influence policy in a restrictive context (Kubicek, 1996;Kuti, 2004;Ljubownikow and Crotty, 2016;Pape and Skokova, 2022); or the importance informality plays in the engagement in voluntary and civic activity within 'post-Soviet' contexts (Orr, 2008;Gatskova and Gatskov, 2016;Krasynska and Martin, 2017;Channell-Justice, 2022).…”