An Introduction to Soviet Officialdom

Huskey, Eugene; Rowney, Don Karl

doi:10.1057/9780230244993_7

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Then, in the 2000s, the presidency consolidated its standing. It came to dominate politics and decision making (Huskey 2009, 216; Sakwa 2010, 188; Gel’man and Starodubtsev 2016; Huskey 2016, 72; Wengle and Evans 2018, 385) and repressive laws and actions against political opposition and nongovernmental organizations involved in human rights promotion were introduced (J. W. Hahn 2004; G. M. Hahn 2004; Gill 2006; McFaul and Stoner-Weiss 2008; Petrone 2011; Smyth 2016; Flikke 2016). “The only institution that claims the mantle of ideological authority is President Putin, whose words are interpreted as the state-supported ideological tenets” (Lipman 2015, 121): vestiges of the “correct line” (Huskey 2014, 121).…”

Section: Russian Governance and The Political Regimementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The reliance upon formal mechanisms is profound in the elite Ministry of the Economic Development, even among rank-and-file employees, in contrast to regional bureaucracies (Basil’evich and Podkolzina 2009, 258–259; Zweynert 2010, 563). The overall professional qualities of Russian low-level bureaucracy are poor, and a far cry from the Weberian ideal of rational governance (Gaman-Golutvina 2008, 42; Rowney and Huskey 2009a, 5; Huskey 2009, 232; Barabashev 2013, 45; Gel’man 2016; 2018). This is most evident in the matters of hiring and promotion.…”

Section: Russian Governance and The Political Regimementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Producing Kartinka: Street-Level Bureaucracy and Implementation of Russia’s Tolerance Policy in St. Petersburg

Sarkisyan

2022

Nationalities Papers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2006, a “tolerance policy” was launched in St. Petersburg to address the growing xenophobia and the need to integrate labor migrants. Applying a bottom–up perspective, this study finds that this policy was symbolic – aimed at changing public attitudes, not at providing material outcomes. The direct implementers (the street-level bureaucracy), operating under governmental constraints, drew on informal mechanisms: behind-the-scenes negotiations, unwritten rules and hierarchies, personalist power, and ideological cues. Formalized dense reporting, often quantitative, was used to keep low-level implementers in check. The combination of these features rendered the tolerance policy shallow and self-locked. Street-level bureaucracy had to interpret vague policy documents, but lacked the necessary discretionary powers. This gave rise to the kartinka (picture, or image) coping technique. The term describes how all work activities were shaped by the need to demonstrate progress with respect to unwritten rules and ideological dynamics. The article concludes with a discussion of the applicability of the author’s findings to the field of nationalities policy in Russia.

show abstract