“The state cannot help them all”. Russian media discourse on the inclusion of non-state actors in governance

Myhre, Marthe Handå; Berg-Nordlie, Mikkel

doi:10.1080/21599165.2016.1168299

Cited by 7 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, our research suggests that there exists a genuine desire on the part of the state to increase levels of citizens' input. Indeed, there is a growing body of work that demonstrates the influence of NPM on public sector reform in general (Verheijen and Dobrolyubova, 2007;Cook, 2007Cook, , 2013Wengle and Rasell, 2008;Romanov, 2008) and increased civic participation in the policy process in particular (Hemment 2009;Tarasenko, 2015;Bindman, 2015;Myhre and Berg-Nordlie, 2016;Aasland, Berg-Nordlie and Bogdanova, 2016;Bogdanova and Bindman, 2016). These studies also show, however, that this is not a simple transferral (or 'diffusion') to Russia of 'global' (or Western) norms and standards (on diffusion, see Finnemore and Sikkink, 1998;Risse, Ropp and Sikkink, 1999); rather, as elsewhere, Russian lawmakers reshape these norms to suit the context of its hybrid authoritarian regime.…”

Section: Civic Participation In the Policy Process: A Principle Of Nementioning

confidence: 99%

Civic Participation in a Hybrid Regime: Limited Pluralism in Policymaking and Delivery in Contemporary Russia

Owen¹,

Bindman²

2017

Gov. & oppos.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article asks why the Russian government has developed new avenues for public participation in policymaking and delivery and assesses the extent to which these avenues introduce pluralism into these processes. Drawing on 50 interviews with individuals and citizens’ groups involved in either public consultative bodies or socially oriented NGOs, the article demonstrates the government’s desire to harness the knowledge and abilities of citizens and civic groups in place of state departments perceived to be bureaucratic and inefficient, while controlling and curtailing their participation. Arguing that these countervailing tendencies can be conceptualized as limited pluralism, a category elaborated by Juan Linz and Alfred Stepan, we show that citizens and civic groups are able to influence policy outcomes to varying extents using these mechanisms.

show abstract

Section: Civic Participation In the Policy Process: A Principle Of Nementioning

confidence: 99%

Civic Participation in a Hybrid Regime: Limited Pluralism in Policymaking and Delivery in Contemporary Russia

Owen¹,

Bindman²

2017

Gov. & oppos.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With the conservative turn in Russia, accompanied by growing mistrust and restrictive legislation against international actors, 2 governance networks have become more 'Russian', a tendency which we refer to in the following as 'domesticization'. Domestic civil society organizations themselves often expect state authorities to take the lead in networks and to consider their own role as serving and supportive of the state (Myhre & Berg-Nordlie 2016).…”

Section: Contextualizing Russian Governance Networkmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Aasland¹,

Kropp

Meylakhs

2019

Voluntas

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

“…An illustrative example of kartinka at work was a session of the Advisory Council ( konsul’tativnyi sovet ), a body established to coordinate discussions of the authorities and ethnic and religious organizations concerning tolerance policy in the city. In practice, their meetings served as a mechanism for mobilizing pro-governmental civil society and demonstrating the “unity” between state and society (Berg-Nordlie and Tkach 2016, 195; Myhre and Berg-Nordlie 2016). A session itself was a show with ethnic leaders of nongovernmental organizations reiterating the “discourse of harmony and calmness” (Berg-Nordlie and Tkach 2016, 185; Silaev 2020, 207–208).…”

Section: Street-level Bureaucracy Work Routines In the Department Of ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

“The state cannot help them all”. Russian media discourse on the inclusion of non-state actors in governance

Cited by 7 publications

References 21 publications

Civic Participation in a Hybrid Regime: Limited Pluralism in Policymaking and Delivery in Contemporary Russia

Civic Participation in a Hybrid Regime: Limited Pluralism in Policymaking and Delivery in Contemporary Russia

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

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About