Creating Organisational Strength from Operationalising Restrictions: Welfare Non-profit Organisations in the Russian Federation

Abstract

The work of non-profit organisations (NPOs) in non-democratic country contexts tends to be judged on their contribution to the democratisation process rather than the activities they undertake. This neglects the potential impact NPOs have on societies within such contexts. In this study, we highlight that NPOs can influence public policy deployment in the Russian Federation even if they cannot affect public policy itself. By operationalising the very restrictions placed upon them, NPOs use their relationships with the state to effect change within their immediate environment and scope of their operational remit, even if they cannot hold authorities to account or influence policy development. The key to this is strong organising capabilities and engagement with the Russian public. We reflect on the implications of our findings to the understanding of civil society development and NPOs in Russia and in other similar non-democratic contexts.

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

“…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).…”

“…Thus, in this assertion, the paper dovetails with other research illustrating that civil society actors focus on the social or economic issues (Ljubownikow and Crotty, 2016;Pape and Skokova, 2022) instead of the more contentious issue of human rights. Echoing the broader literature on Russian civil society, the paper highlights this as often a tactical choice by civil society actors (Moser and Skripchenko, 2018;Tysiachniouk et al, 2018;Crotty and Ljubownikow, 2020). As such, this paper illustrates how civil society actors might need to engage in camouflaging what they do to achieve their aims and pursue their agendas, if these are at odds with that of a restrictive state (Claus and Tracey, 2020;Neuberger et al, 2023).…”

“…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 more hostile contexts, this seems to come at the expense of creating a strong and established counterweight to the state. It does seem that civil society is able to 'thrive' within the boundaries set by the state (Crotty and Ljubownikow, 2020) but, at the same time, is not able to 'prevent' the increasing authoritarianism. The commonalities across the first three papers also highlight that the often-hyperlocal nature of civil society actors' focus and activity has effectively given the Russian state absolutist power.…”