Global deinstitutionalisation policy in the post-Soviet space: A comparison of child-welfare reforms in Russia and Kazakhstan

Abstract

This article compares how the global policy of deinstitutionalisation (DI) of child welfare travelled, was translated and institutionalised in two post-Soviet countries – Russia and Kazakhstan. These countries share a Soviet legacy of child-welfare systems dominated by residential care and have recently introduced similar DI reforms based on the global child rights framework. However, despite similar institutional legacies and post-Soviet conditions, the DI reforms have produced different outcomes in terms of the scope and pace of the institutionalisation of DI policy. In Russia, the DI of child welfare has been a fast-moving and sweeping reform, while in Kazakhstan, the implementation of DI has been an incremental and gradual process. We argue that the institutionalisation of the DI policy in two post-Soviet contexts was an outcome of the interplay between structural factors and the agency of policy actors who translated global DI ideology into domestic policy discourses. Yet, they were ‘sold’ with quite different discursive frames – one nationalist, another one trans-nationalist – in these two countries. We claim that the geopolitical position of a country is also a significant factor for framing and thus, in the end, in how child-welfare systems have been reformed.

The Impact of Oil Prices on the Macroeconomic Indicators of Kazakhstan and the Consequences for the Formation of Social Policy

“…Ultimately, everything depends on the solution of this problem: the power and independence of the state, the well-being of the people, the stability of the political atmosphere in society. During the transition to a market economy, this circumstance predetermined the emergence of many problems in the field of social policy pursued by Kazakhstani government structures at various levels, and to a large extent determined the financial nature of most of them (Jussupova, 2019;An and Kulmala, 2021). The problem of financing social policy measures naturally comes to the fore in the context of the deterioration of the country's socio-economic development during the period of falling oil prices and the depreciation of the KZT tenge (Tsaurkubule et al, 2020).…”

Deinstitutionalization of children in residential care facilities: Experiences and perceptions of professionals in Ghana

“…Though variations exist in different contexts, the countries that have achieved success have done so through strong political will, a well‐functioning family‐based alternative care and social protection system, and adequate funding and resources. However, DI has been proven to be a complex and challenging policy area to effectively programme and implement in many other LMICS (e.g., An & Kulmala, 2020; Bindman et al, 2019; Forber‐Pratt et al, 2020; Rogers & Karunan, 2020). Even though many of the LMICs are not prepared or ready for DI, there is pressure from parties (e.g., the European Union) to show their compliance with international child laws (Fronek et al, 2019; Petersen, 2018).…”

Global out-of-home childcare and world culture

“…The expansion of DI policy is discussed in a number of case studies (e.g. An and Kulmala, 2021; Babington, 2015; Chaitkin et al, 2017; Huseynli, 2018; Kuuse and Toros, 2019; Ulybina, 2020), but a global comparative picture of how these policies have diffused across the various national contexts that constitute the world polity is missing. This study aims to fill this gap by providing a comparative cross-national analysis of policy commitments related to out-of-home childcare deinstitutionalization.…”