The Russian State as Network Manager: A Theoretical Framework

Berg-Nordlie, Mikkel; Holm-Hansen, Jørn; Kropp, Sabine

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-61702-2_2

Cited by 8 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 68 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In fact, state-civil society interaction in the socio-medical sphere is significant, and although they are controlled and dominated by the state, non-state actors perform important functions for the state. Elsewhere, we have emphasized the importance of building legitimacy for state policy as a major reason for the state's involvement of civil society in governance networks (Aasland et al 2016;Aasland & Meylakhs 2018;Berg-Nordlie et al 2018). Although this appears to be the case for governance networks on drug policy as well, what was mentioned more often by informants from state bureaucracy as a motivation for involving civil society actors is more mundane, namely making use of the human resources they provide.…”

Section: Mutual Benefits Of the Collaboration And The Interdependencymentioning

confidence: 98%

“…In order to improve its policy output, the Russian regime practices a combination of hard and soft tools of governance. 'Vertical' modes such as hierarchy, coercion, and repression -'hard' tools deemed typical of non-democratic regimesare combined not only with attempts to initiate market-driven competition among actors and regions (in order to promote 'best' solutions and to test the competence and loyalty of political elites) but also with collaborative, 'softer' modes of governance (Berg-Nordlie et al 2018;Davies et al 2016;. At first glance, it appears somewhat counterintuitive to discover such complex 'patterns of the mix' (Davies 2011: 57) in non-democratic regimes, as they tend to attenuate the power of 'vertically' organized institutions.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This concept, which is named 'meta-governance' (Sørensen & Torfing 2016;Sørensen 2006;Jessop 1997), particularly matches the Russian context with its strong institutionalization of 'vertical' power. As state authorities usually act as a 'network manager' (Berg-Nordlie et al 2018), they are able to utilize a flexible combination of tools to govern networks.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Between Collaboration and Subordination: State and Non-state Actors in Russian Anti-drug Policy

Aasland¹,

Kropp

Meylakhs

2019

Voluntas

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Due to weak state and administrative capacity, the Russian government has involved resource-rich non-state actors into policymaking since about 2005 and established numerous institutionalized platforms, networks, and forums. These networks mainly emerge on regional and local levels and are designed to generate policy advice, implement decisions, and contribute to output legitimacy. A crucial question is how the authorities govern and regulate these bodies under the terms of a hybrid regime. The paper sheds light on why and how state authorities interact with non-state actors and unravels functions and flavors of governance networks in Russia. Drawing on the empirical results of case studies on anti-drug policy conducted in the regions Samara and St Petersburg, the paper reveals that state dominance within networks is a significant characteristic, although authorities rarely apply explicit 'hard' tools of government onto collaborations with non-state actors. The paper also allows for theorizing on the role of governance networks in a hybrid regime.

show abstract

Section: Mutual Benefits Of the Collaboration And The Interdependencymentioning

confidence: 98%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Between Collaboration and Subordination: State and Non-state Actors in Russian Anti-drug Policy

Aasland¹,

Kropp

Meylakhs

2019

Voluntas

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the strong focus on the state has so far provided insufficient insight into the role of social actors within the Russian migration regime. Given complex political challenges, the state shows an interest in cooperating with non-state actors and utilizes expert knowledge to effectively address social issues (Berg-Nordlie et al 2018). Nevertheless, we know relatively little about the role of non-state actors and their cooperation with the state in Russian migration policy.…”

Section: Political Regulation Of Immigration In Post-soviet Russiamentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge, Power, and Trust: The Role of Experts in Russia’s Migration Regime

Глатте

2020

JSPS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines the role of experts in the field of migration policy in an authoritarian environment and their collaboration with the state in times of crisis. While much of the literature on migration policy-making in Russia focuses on patron-client relationships between state and business, little is known about the collaboration of state actors and experts. Therefore, this paper provides an overview of the main migration experts and shows the conditions under which they are involved in migration policy. Despite various forms of collaboration, expert policy networks are strictly controlled by Russia’s authoritarian state. Measures of control include the sanctioning of foreign financing, a weak culture of dialogue, non-transparent political decisions, the absence of institutionalized political competition and an extremely personalized system of interaction that places experts in a relationship of dependence, thus preventing substantial criticism of political decisions and forcing loyalty. Since 2016, the conditions under which experts are involved in migration policy have become even more limited. It is argued that the reasons for the change are linked to a threefold loss of trust in the expertise of non-state actors, in particular, international organizations. This loss of trust can be explained firstly by a collision of the long-term logic of expert advice with the short-term crisis management of the state; secondly by a dynamic that followed from the institutional restructuring of the Federal Migration Service that dissolved long-standing personal relationships between experts and officials; and thirdly by a general loss of trust in Western policy solutions and liberal norms in the management of migration (crises).

show abstract

“…For example, the potential impact of epistemic communities and non-governmental actors will inevitably be shaped by the openness of a political system and the existence of channels for societal-government dialogue. The recent development of ´partnership´ or ´network´ styles of governance in Russia thus provides a platform for epistemic communities to present their ideas and proposals (Berg-Nordlie et al 2017). The nature of a political system and balance of power between various political and societal actors are also important, as Duma and regional opposition to social welfare reforms in Russia in the 1990's clearly demonstrated (Cook 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Overhauling Russia’s Child Welfare system: Institutional and Ideational Factors behind the Paradigm Shift

Кулмала¹,

Rasell

Чернова

2017

JSPS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OVERHAULING RUSSIA'S CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM: INSTITUTIONAL AND IDEATIONAL FACTORS BEHIND THE PARADIGM SHIFTThis article studies the causal factors behind the major overhaul of Russia's system for children in substitute care that has been taking place since the late 2000's. A series of reforms have promoted fostering and family-like care in contrast to the large residential homes used in the Soviet period and 1990's. We highlight the fundamental change in the 'ideal of care' represented by the move to 'deinstitutionalise' the care system by promoting domestic adoptions, increasing the number of foster families, creating early support services for families as well as restructuring remaining residential institutions into smaller, home-like environments. These are all key elements of the global deinstitutionalisation trend that is taking place around the globe. We look at the evolution of the related policies and ask why this policy shift happened during the 2010's even though the issue of reform had partially been on the Russian policy agenda for some time. Building on an explanatory approach to family policy changes by Magritta Mäztke and Ilona Ostner, which incorporates material and ideational driving forces, we explain that the 'political will from above' behind these major reforms was shaped by a range of other societal and political factors. instance, the increasing conservative turn in policies towards children and families, which are driven by the severe demographic decline in the country, work alongside the influence of international norms around children's rights and changing socio-economic circumstances. In the 1990's Russian NGOs had considerable input into the reforms as 'epistemic communities' in policy formation thanks to the high level of expertise that they developed in international networks and the increasing number of cross-sector consultative platforms at governmental bodies in contemporary Russia. We conclude that ideational factors were necessary preconditions for the reforms, but that political forces were ultimately the key driving force. The recentralisation of power and prioritisation of social policy under President Putin allowed new ideas to gain concrete policy realisation.

show abstract

The Russian State as Network Manager: A Theoretical Framework

Cited by 8 publications

References 68 publications

Between Collaboration and Subordination: State and Non-state Actors in Russian Anti-drug Policy

Between Collaboration and Subordination: State and Non-state Actors in Russian Anti-drug Policy

Knowledge, Power, and Trust: The Role of Experts in Russia’s Migration Regime

Overhauling Russia’s Child Welfare system: Institutional and Ideational Factors behind the Paradigm Shift

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About