Encouraged but controlled: governance networks in Russian regions

The Carrot or the Stick? Constraints and Opportunities of Russia’s CSO Policy

“…In 2005 the Federal Public Chamber, the first institutional product of the new policy, was established to provide a channel of communication between civil society and government. Similar bodies were established in each Russian region (Richter 2009;Stuvøy 2014;Krasnopolskaya et al 2015;Aasland et al 2016;Bogdanova & Bindman 2016;Skokova 2016). In 2007 the government began programmes of financial support for Russian CSOs, first introducing the so-called presidential grants, and later adding a competitive grant programme run by the Ministry of Economic Development (Kulmala 2013;Tarasenko 2013).…”

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

“…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.…”

“…According to the Federal Public Chamber, these types of organisation enable 'a means of democratic participation in which party-political conflict as such is absent' (Obshchestvennaya Palata, 2011: 5). Nonetheless, some (though by no means all) PCBs have a certain, though limited, influence on decision-making and political outcomes (Chebankova, 2013: 114-115;Stuvøy 2014;Olisova, 2015;Owen, 2015;Aasland, Berg-Nordlie and Bogdanova, 2016). It is clear that the PCB network is intended to provide vital policy input to a regime that seeks to avoid outright political competition.…”

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

“…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.…”