Problem complexity and narratives in Moscow's waste controversy

Abstract

Public problems are not complex per se but are defined as such. This article explores how problem definition in terms of complexity is strategically used in narratives to expand or contain a policy conflict. We draw on the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) to examine how actors use narratives to define problems and link these problems to solutions and characters. Empirically, we examine narratives used in the Moscow waste management debate by drawing on content analysis of online texts and interviews. The results show that government actors seek to contain conflict by assigning less complexity to the waste problem than nongovernmental actors, who expand conflict by defining the waste problem as politically complex. Narratives with high problem complexity include many victims and villains and propose multifaceted and institutional solutions, while narratives with low problem complexity focus on technocratic solutions. Implications for the Russian waste controversy and the NPF are discussed.

Narratives in an authoritarian environment: Narrative strategies, plots, and characters in Moscow’s public transport reforms debate

“…For the anti-reform actors, using the devil shift strategy in combination with the use of villains and victims is, perhaps, the only realistic way to expand the conflict and change the status quo. These findings go in line with the results of the study on waste management policy in Moscow (Schlaufer et al, 2021), where the opposing coalition also concentrated on the same types of characters and similar plots.…”

“…Comparatively open policy debates, where the opposition actors could participate and express criticism, provide governmental actors opportunities to seek feedback and a chance for central authorities to evaluate the performance of regional governments. Based on only one case, it is not possible to claim that this pattern is common for any policy debate in an authoritarian setting, but it goes in parallel with the results of several recent studies on policymaking process in China and Russia (Bindman et al, 2019;Duckett & Wang, 2017;Schuler, 2020) and a similar study on debates over Moscow's waste management policy and system (Schlaufer et al, 2021).…”

Decarbonization and climate change

“…Drawing on the concept of strategic framing and results from a mixed-method approach, the analysis presents evidence for the claim that outlining specific aspects of the policy's design, such as economic benefits, and putting less emphasis on climate change and climate sciences enabled a cross-partisan consensus on these policies. The paper fits into a couple of recent publications that also stress the importance of framing and narratives in climate and environmental policies (Derwort et al, 2021;Gjerstad & Fløttum, 2021;Lawlor & Crow, 2018;Schlaufer et al, 2021;Shanahan et al, 2018;Tosun & Schaub, 2021;Vogeler et al, 2021). As opposed to the framing of policies, the article by Purdon et al (2021) focuses on the interaction and sequencing of low-carbon regulations in the transportation sector.…”

Political conflicts and surprising policy outcomes in times of crisis

“…The interest of the paper is more general: it follows on from EPA's most recent special issue (Stauffer & Kuenzler, 2021) and uses the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) for an analysis of European policy processes. Like the contribution by Schlaufer et al (2021), it ventures into the particular conditions of authoritarian politics in Moscow's local politics. In this contribution, too, online data, especially politicians' websites on the one hand and critical blogs on the other hand, form the most important data basis (in Schlaufer et al's case supplemented by interviews).…”