Governance in Russian Regions

A Policy Comparison

Sabine Kropp, Aadne Aasland, Mikkel Berg-Nordlie, Jørn Holm-Hansen, Johannes Schuhmann, Sabine Kropp, Aadne Aasland, Mikkel Berg-Nordlie, Jørn Holm-Hansen, Johannes Schuhmann

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN:
  9783319617015
• eBook ISBN:
  9783319617022
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: European Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This book investigates the emergence and working of governance networks in contemporary Russia. Drawing on a case study design, it provides a novel comparison of seven policy issues each investigated across various Russian regions or over time. Its authors reveal that governance networks are a ubiquitous phenomenon emerging in different regime types. It sheds light on how and why state authorities interact with non-state actors and unravels various types, functions and flavours of governance networks in Russia. By precisely tracing how state authorities govern networks under the terms of a hybrid regime, special emphasis is placed on the analysis of 'meta-governance' tools. Moreover, the book allows for theorising on governance in an increasingly authoritarian regime and thus can also be read as a unique contribution to research on governance theory in general. Creating a clear analytical framework it reflects the richness of governance theory and offers fresh perspectives on the nature of hybrid and 'new' authoritarian regimes. This original work will appeal to students and scholars of Russian Studies, public policy, political science, sociology, and public administration.

© The Author(s) 2018

Sabine Kropp, Aadne Aasland, Mikkel Berg-Nordlie, Jørn Holm-Hansen and Johannes Schuhmann (eds.)Governance in Russian Regionshttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61702-2_1

Begin Abstract

1. Preface

Sabine Kropp¹  

(1)

Otto Suhr Institute of Political Science, Chair of German Politics, Freie Universität Berlin, Ihnestraße 22, 14195 Berlin, Germany

 

 

Sabine Kropp

Email: [email protected]

End Abstract

In the past decades, governance theory has been among the most inspiring and rapidly growing research areas in social science. As it emphasises the limited statehood of modern states, the theory lies at the heart of international relations but was also frequently used and further developed by policy studies disclosing that state authorities have to engage with autonomous private actors in order to cope with complex social, economic and political problems. More specifically, ‘…governance implies that private actors are involved in decision-making in order to provide common goods and that non-hierarchical means of guidance are employed’. ¹ In such cooperative, network-based arrangements, command and control are considered inappropriate. State authorities are expected to direct networks by mainly using ‘soft’ techniques of governing. As regards the quality of the state, governance theory uncovered that the ‘state’ hardly ever appears as a homogeneous, unitary actor, but should rather be conceived as a network in and of itself. The modern state comprises various organisations and actors which are only partially linked to each other by simple hierarchies. Empirical research inspired by governance theory has substantiated this convergence towards collaborative relations involving public and non-public actors and the linking of different government levels. Considering these ascribed characteristics, it is not surprising that networks have been acknowledged as a mode of governance typical for western societies.

As a departure from this mainstream thought, this book takes the theory out of its genuine context and investigates the emergence and working of governance networks in contemporary Russia where there is a system which has frequently been designated as ‘hybrid’ or increasingly authoritarian. ² Our point of divergence was the assumption that governance networks are a ubiquitous phenomenon and do not occur just in democracies. At first glance this basic notion may appear to be somewhat counterintuitive because non-democratic regimes are usually associated with subordination, control, coercion, and, generally, ‘vertical’ styles of governance. Nonetheless, when starting our research, we considered our argument as conclusive for at least three reasons. Firstly, even non-democratic regimes featuring strong hierarchies cannot effectively respond to complex policy problems without activating the resources of private actors. Secondly, there is widespread consensus that networks are just one ideal-type mode of governance besides hierarchy and the market; the strict dichotomy between ‘horizontal’ and ‘vertical’ governance modes is therefore an over-simplification and should be replaced by approaches delving into ‘patterns of the mix’. ³ Following this, the theory opens up for an analysis of non-democratic regimes since it becomes plausible that in all systems vertical modes mingle with horizontal ones, albeit featuring strong differences in how these modes are mixed and linked to each other. Thirdly, the normative undertone usually accompanying governance network theory, stressing equality and trust among actors, tends to obscure the fact that networks in democracies are rarely shaped by horizontal, trust-based relations, but often feature asymmetries and hierarchies working in favour of the state authorities. We postulate that all these arguments make network governance theory an obvious approach for investigating empirical cases across various regime types. Last but not least, the motivation for this book also arose from the empirical observation that governance networks do emerge in Russia. In fact, over the past decade the Russian federal government has spent considerable effort to nurture and incorporate a ‘constructive’ civil society into policy-making. Collaboration with non-state actors has become an officially sanctioned policy. It was a central question underlying this book as to how this formalised working-together is vitalised in everyday politics and implemented across various policy issues.

We believe that shifting the research perspective on Russian politics in this direction enables us to gain a deeper understanding of hybrid and ‘new’ authoritarian regimes. In studies on Russian politics and society, however, the term ‘network’ often has a negative connotation because it is strongly associated with informal, dark power networks, such as patronal politics, clientelism, or corruption. These structures may well indeed be crucial for understanding the nature of Russian politics. Yet we argue that this is just half the battle when debating the meaning of networks. Like other regimes, Russia must solve concrete policy problems in order to stabilise or increase its legitimacy. At the same time, its capacity to tackle these problems is limited, especially at the regional level and in the communities where policy problems become visible and concrete. ⁴ Significantly, social welfare tasks and health issues have been transferred to the subnational levels, but tax money is predominantly allocated from the federal level. Effectively then the regional governments lack fiscal and organisational resources. In such situations, it is an obvious strategy for incumbents to resort to the resources provided by non-state actors and establish formal collaborations. The individual chapters will show, however, that the real functioning of institutionalised networks is rather divergent, and the articles will give explanations for similarities and differences.

The research provided in this volume is located at the interface of governance theory and regime hybridity (respectively ‘new’ authoritarianism ) which represent independent, but combinable strands of research. On the one hand the book attempts to widen the angle of governance theory. On the other hand, as the volume links the theory to the ongoing debate on regime hybridity and authoritarian rule, it helps to refine our knowledge about what is characteristic of these regimes. Despite the continuously growing stock of contributions, scholars have pointed out that research still lacks profound insights into how authoritarianism and regime hybridity work in practice. This book argues that network governance theory may help to fill this gap. It claims to bring some new insights to light by addressing the following questions: How are we to understand the real functioning of governance networks? More specifically, how are various policies made and implemented within networks, which types of actors interact and of what kind are their relations? Which patterns of—more or less mixed—governance modes have emerged in Russia? Which invariant features of governance networks can be carved out, and which functions do governance networks fulfil in an increasingly authoritarian regime?

For grasping the specific ‘mixes’ of governance modes in Russia, the abundant theoretical debate had to be confined, but at the same time it was indispensable to widen the perspectives on network governance. Considering the hierarchical character of Russian politics, theories explaining how governance networks are guided ‘from above’ were consulted. Correspondingly, the individual chapters examine in detail which tools the state authorities utilise in order to govern networks. This theoretical angle, which was labelled ‘meta-governance’ in the second wave of governance research, precisely matches the Russian context: even though the regime aims at cooperating with loyal private actors, it at the same time tightens control, often mistrusts non-state actors, and bends the rules if it regards it to be necessary. Hence, the authors expected to discover a broad range of ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ tools used to direct governance networks .

This volume endeavours to meet the questions outlined above by comparing governance networks across various policies and Russian regions. The data was gathered by two project teams, one based in Oslo, and the other one in Dusseldorf and Berlin. In total, both teams conducted more than 20 case studies in seven Russian regions. In regular meetings the theoretical framework was debated and empirical findings were discussed, evaluated and compared. This procedure not only enabled us to integrate the case studies into a coherent theoretical framework which was finally applied to all policy chapters in this volume, but it also facilitated tying the empirical findings together and allowed for feeding the results of the case studies into governance theory.

The chapters can be grouped into two sets, namely those providing the empirical observations in various policy areas, and those preparing the research field on theoretical grounds and further systematising the empirical results. As governance theory is a slippery ground, a conceptual clarification was indispensable. The existing stock of literature resembles a maze of intermingled, sometimes conflicting conceptions, and is often underlain by normative-laden assumptions. Chapter 2 therefore strides across this minefield by undertaking definitions and demarcating the research field. It discusses which strands of governance theory are feasible for being transferred to our object of investigation, and reconsiders how the theory is to be contextualised when analysing governance networks in Russia. Case selection and methodology are also debated in this introductory chapter. Chapter 9, again, systematises the empirical findings by comparing them across regions and policy areas. This final chapter maps different types and functions of governance networks and elaborates new perspectives on governance theory by applying it to an increasingly authoritarian regime. In doing so, we believe that the ideas and findings elaborated in both these chapters are conducive to developing fresh views on governance theory. The second group of chapters, again, comprises six policy areas, ranging from social issues such as HIV prevention and child care, to the investigation of environmental impact assessments and climate change adaptation, to problems of ethnic policy and indigenous representation . All policy chapters use the theoretical framework worked out in Chap. 2 and compare governance networks within one and the same policy area either across regions or over a period of time. They were designed to tell ‘thick descriptions’, but at the same time all the authors attempted to make sure that all chapters were wrought by the same theoretical framework and that they generate comparable findings. The book can thus be read by scholars of Russian politics as an integrated monograph; but since the theoretical concept is also briefly clarified within each policy chapter, it also provides an added value for experts engaged in a respective policy area.

The work on this book has stretched over years. It would have been impossible to conduct the research without the generous funding given by the German Metro Foundation and the Norwegian Research Council’s NORRUSS programme. Empirical fieldwork is always an uncertain endeavour and can be successful only if many partners are willing to cooperate and support the research. We are thus very grateful to all actors coming from state and non-state sectors in Russia for sharing their expert knowledge with us and providing useful information. We would also like to thank our colleagues, Elena Bogdanova, Jonathan Davies, Vadim Kononenko, Karina Mikirova, Asbjørn Røiseland and Olga Tkach for their various contributions to the research that forms the basis of this book.

Notes

1. 1.
   Héritier, Adrienne. 2002. Introduction. In Common Goods. Reinventing European and International Governance, ed. Adrienne Héritier, 1–12, Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, at p. 3.
    
2. 2.
   Since the empirical research of the authors has streched over years, it reflects the recent development of the Russian system becoming increasingly authoritarian. Therefore, the book also touches the contested issue whether Russia is better categorised as a hybrid regime which combines formally democratic institutions wautocratic practices, or whether it is more convincing to assign it clearly to the regime type of authoritarianism . Both approaches put forth plausible arguments. Regarding the functioning of governance networks in Russia, it can either be argued that their existence mirrors regime hybridity as they provide a new variant of—albeit ‘managed’—public participation, or that governance networks highlight an important aspect of what is 'new' about authoritarian rule.
    
3. 3.
   Davies, Jonathan S. 2011. Challenging Governance Theory: From Networks to Hegemony. Bristol: The Policy Press, at p. 57.
    
4. 4.
   Melville, Andrei, Denis Stukal and Mikhail Mironiuk. 2014. ‘King of the Mountain’, or Why Postcommunist Autocracies Have Bad Institutions. Russian Politics and Law 52 (2), 7–29.
    

© The Author(s) 2018

Sabine Kropp, Aadne Aasland, Mikkel Berg-Nordlie, Jørn Holm-Hansen and Johannes Schuhmann (eds.)Governance in Russian Regionshttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61702-2_2

Begin Abstract

2. The Russian State as Network Manager: A Theoretical Framework

Mikkel Berg-Nordlie¹ , Jørn Holm-Hansen² and Sabine Kropp³

(1)

Department for International Studies and Migration, NIBR Institute of Oslo and Akershus University College, Holbergs Gate 1, 0166 Oslo, Norway

(2)

Department for International Studies and Migration, Norwegian Insti...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Frontmatter
• 1. Preface
• 2. The Russian State as Network Manager: A Theoretical Framework
• 3. Adjusting the Scope of Interaction Between State and Civil Society: HIV Prevention Among Drug Users
• 4. Environmental Impact Assessment: Between Facilitating Public Contribution and Arbitrary Involvement of NGOs
• 5. Climate Change Adaptation: Governance in a Fragmented and Unsettled Policy Area
• 6. Child Welfare Policies in Russia—Civil Society Contributions Without Return?
• 7. Imitation and Enforced Cooperation: State and Civil Society in Ethnic Conflict Management
• 8. Substitution in Sápmi. Meta-Governance and Conflicts Over Representation in Regional Indigenous Governance
• 9. Patterns of Governance in Russia: Feedback of Empirical Findings into Governance Theory
• Backmatter