Аннотация. Статья посвящена исследованию базовых характеристик административного дискурса современной России: его структуры, объема и основных дискурсивных практик. Методами исследования стали документальный анализ и этнографическое наблюдение. Эмпирической основой анализа документов послужили базы данных российского законодательства федерального, регионального и муниципального уровней. Включенное неструктурированное наблюдение осуществлялось в федеральном органе исполнительной власти в период с 2013 по 2016 г. в Москве. В качестве теоретико-методологического основания исследования принята концепция критического дискурс-анализа Н. Фэркло. Предложено авторское определение административного дискурса, а также описание логики учреждения и автономизации бюрократического пространства современной России. Наряду с автономизацией выявлены также следующие тенденции административного дискурса: стандартизация и самовоспроизводство. Показаны структура и объем формальной основы административного дискурса, приведены статистические данные по количеству федеральных, региональных и муниципальных нормативных правовых актов, которых насчитывается более 8 млн единиц. Разработаны структурные коэффициенты, отражающие проработанность и изменчивость правового поля. Показано, что наиболее стабильное и проработанное правовое поле сформировано на муниципальном уровне, наименее-на региональном. Федеральный уровень по проработанности и стабильности законов и оперативного регулирования занимает промежуточное положение. На примере четырех основных дискурсивных практик административной жизни: учреждение, контроль, поручение (резолюции), согласование (визы)-показано, как внутри ведомств осуществляется производство и легитимация текстов, в результате чего они обогащаются историей, набирают административный вес, приобретают конвенциональный вид, силу и масштаб действия и в конечном итоге становятся влияющими акторами административного про

Education, occupation, and income have been long considered as powerful predictors of political participation in Western societies, indicating that voices of people with different socioeconomic status are not expressed to the same extent in politics. However, whether education, occupation, and income have causal effects on political participation is questionable; as well as whether education has an absolute or relative effect on political participation. We contribute to this discussion by estimating the effects of education, occupational status, and income on political participation on a sample of identical twins from Germany. By applying family fixed effects regression models, we take into account unmeasured confounding effects of the social environment and genes. We found that education has a positive effect on political participation that is most likely causal. We did not find effects of occupational status and income on political participation. We conclude that education is not merely a proxy for a person’s relative socio-economic status, but that the absolute level of education has an independent effect. By this, we contribute to the discussion of absolute versus relative effects of education.

Whether educational attainment compensates for or reinforces family disadvantages in political participation is currently a debated topic. Previous research has shown a consistent relationship between social origin and political participation in Western societies: individuals originating from low-socioeconomic-status families participate in politics less than those from high-socioeconomic-status families, which violates the democratic requirement of equality of political voice. In this paper, we investigate whether secondary education compensates for or reinforces the political inequality shaped by social origin. We used a German representative sample of 1012 identical twins aged 21–25 and applied family fixed effects regression models, which allowed us to control for measured and unmeasured social and genetic confounding. We found a positive effect of educational attainment on participation, which is most likely causal. Family disadvantage resulting from low parental education is compensated for by children finishing the academic track (Gymnasium) as opposed to the lower vocational track (Hauptschule). At the same time, family advantage originating from high parental occupational status is reinforced for children completing the academic track. We found no advantage nor disadvantage, compensation nor reinforcement, related to parental income. We conclude that compensation and reinforcement of family disadvantage may remain unnoticed if components of parental SES are not distinguished.

Previous research has shown a consistent effect of social origin on political participation: people originating from low-socioeconomic-status families participate in politics less than people from high-socioeconomic-status families, – which violates the democratic premise and one of the most fundamental human rights – equality of political voice. We investigated in this paper whether education compensates or reinforces the political inequality shaped by social origin. We used a German representative sample of 1,046 identical twins of 21-25 years old and applied family fixed effects regression models, which allowed to control for measured and unmeasured genetic and social confounding. We found a positive causal effect of educational attainment on participation. Family disadvantage caused by low parental education is compensated by children obtaining intermediate or high levels of education. At the same time, family advantage originating from high parental occupational status is reinforced for children completing gymnasium. We found no (dis)advantage, compensation or reinforcement related to parental income. We conclude that compensation and reinforcement of family disadvantage may remain unnoticed if components of parental SES are not distinguished.

We examined the role of parental educational, cultural, and economic capital in differences in educational outcomes of first-generation students (FGS) and continuous-generation students (CGS). We considered four educational outcomes: enrollment in a selective university, university educational performance, dropout, and whether the student pursued a master’s or PhD program. We studied whether compared to CGS, FGS have poorer educational outcomes (1), possess less or more family capital (2), whether these capitals explain the difference in educational outcomes between FGS and CGS (3), to what extent these capitals affect educational outcomes through primary and secondary parental effects (4), and whether FGS benefit less from those capitals compared to CGS (5). We analyzed nine waves of Russian panel data of a cohort of 5,000 students surveyed yearly in 2012-2020. We applied structural equation modeling that allowed to conduct a multiple multivariate regression analysis and to correct for measurement error. We found that 45.6% of the cohort under investigation were FGS. FGS’s educational outcomes are poorer compared to CGS, with the exception of the likelihood of dropout that does not differ. FGS have lower educational, cultural, and economic capital, and this partly explains differences in educational outcomes, but mostly via primary parental effects. We did not find evidence that FGS and CGS benefit differently from parental capital.