State &gt;Legitimacy and the (In)significance of Democracy in Post‐Communist Russia

Sil, Rudra; Chen, Cheng

doi:10.1080/09668130410001682672

Cited by 61 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Studies of authoritarianism have only recently started to look beyond material and coercive bases of authoritarian rule to consider ideational sources of stability and legitimacy (Goode, ; Dukalskis and Hooker, ; Levitsky and Way, ; Mellon, ; Murzakulova and Schoeberlein, ; Razi, ; Sil and Chen, ). In identifying sources of legitimacy for authoritarianism, there are finite types or categories of legitimacy (Zelditch, ) even if the nature of legitimacy and legitimating claims are irretrievably specific to a state's history.…”

Section: Everyday Nationalism As a Research Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%

Everyday Nationalism: Constructivism for the Masses*

Goode

Stroup

2015

Social Science Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective. We argue that the "everyday nationalism" approach is both useful and necessary for improving existing constructivist approaches in the comparative study of nationalism and ethnic politics. Methods. A meta-analysis of existing studies reveals pervasive conceptual and methodological problems of contemporary constructivist approaches. We consider the implications of replacing individuals or groups with ethnic or nationalist practices as units of analysis. Results. Everyday nationalism promises to address the gap between constructivist theory and the methodological individualism of existing studies. This approach proceeds from ethnographic observation and utilizes methods reliant on observing societal interaction or relational meaning making for verification. We illustrate such a research strategy using examples of nationalist legitimation in authoritarian regimes and the ethnicization of economic development. Conclusion. The everyday nationalism approach promises to overcome the shortcomings in much contemporary constructivist work. The potential for developing qualitative data sets of nationalist or ethnic practices further promises to complement constructivist insights.Over the last 25 years, the comparative study of nationalism and ethnic politics in the social sciences witnessed something of a renaissance. A new generation of scholars advanced research agendas concerning nationalist mobilization (Stroschein, 2012). In decisively breaking with primordial assumptions about ethnicity and nationality as a function of descent, this new literature formed creative linkages with related work on social movements, social and political institutions, social psychology, cognitive science, and international relations. This intellectual ferment found infrastructural support for scholarship in the founding (and revival) of new academic journals, scholarly organizations, degree-granting programs, and inclusion in standard disciplinary curricula. Yet the depth and success of these efforts also cast into sharp relief the gaps, omissions, and opportunities in the field: in brief, the masses remain something of a mystery.That the study of ethnic and nationalist politics would be challenged by the incorporation of mass society into analysis is surprising, given the widespread scholarly acceptance of the constructivist paradigm. In broad terms, constructivists hold that power is both ideational *

show abstract

Section: Everyday Nationalism As a Research Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%

Everyday Nationalism: Constructivism for the Masses*

Goode

Stroup

2015

Social Science Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In its place had emerged a "chaotic" (Lane, 2000) form of capitalism, dominated by corruption and the "unrule" of law (Holmes, 1997). This "chaotic capitalism" was accompanied by "over withdrawal" (Sil & Chen, 2004) or fragmentation of the state from areas where it has previously been responsible, led to: the displacement of monetary policy by barter surrogates (Woodruff, 1999); devolution of power from the federal center to regional fiefdoms (Stoner-Weiss, 1999); widespread corruption, non-payment of taxes, and organized crime (Holmes, 2008;Yakovlev, 2001); weak institutions (Puffer & McCarthy, 2011); and the diffusion of "capture" by so-called "oligarchs" over the state (Hellman 1998;Solnick 1999). With the ability to shape regulation to service their own interests and to determine the makeup of regional and federal legislatures (Frye, 2002;Gustafson 2000), these oligarchs were in effect governing the Russian Federation in tandem with ruling elites (Hanson & Teague, 2005).…”

Section: The Russian Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Corporate Social Responsibility in the Russian Federation

Crotty

2014

Business & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has emerged as a concept for business from within developed, Western economies. Such economies are underpinned by functioning institutions, where compliance with regulation is assumed. Recently, however, the ability of this traditional understanding of CSR to take account of the different economic and institutional arrangements found in non-Western contexts has been challenged. It has been argued that CSR research needs to be more contextualized and that the Western interpretation and assumptions about what CSR is and how it is enacted needs to be broadened and challenged to take account of different stages of economic development. With this argument in mind, this article presents a contextualized critique of CSR undertaken in the Russian Federation. Based on a qualitative study involving managers within privatized Russian firms, this article explores the type, nature, and scope of CSR undertaken and attendant motivation of firms to engage in CSR practice. By taking account of the historical and cultural antecedents of both the Soviet Union and the post-Soviet transition period, the author reveals that while the market is driving conventional forms of CSR within some Russian firms, the historical legacy of both the Soviet Union and more recent political developments have a stronger influence on the type and nature of CSR undertaken. These findings challenge the assumptions about both the voluntary nature of CSR and the prerequisites needed for CSR to take place.

show abstract

“…When Putin was first elected president in 2000, he announced that he would establish a "dictatorship of law" (Taylor, 2011). Terms such as Putin's "guided democracy" (Sil and Chen, 2004) or "sovereign democracy" (Silitski, 2010) These procedural claims have been recurrently invoked in conjunction with claims related to performance. Each of these four regimes has fundamentally grounded its legitimating narratives in its performance with regard to securing stability -for instance, in fighting "terrorism" and preserving socio-economic well-being in the country.…”

Section: Russia Belarus Moldova and Ukrainementioning

confidence: 99%

How Do Non-Democratic Regimes Claim Legitimacy? Comparative Insights from Post-Soviet Countries

Soest

Grauvogel

2015

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. www.econstor.eu www.giga-hamburg.de/workingpapers GIGA Working Papers serve to disseminate the research results of work in progress prior to publicaton to encourage the exchange of ideas and academic debate. Inclusion of a paper in the Working Papers series does not constitute publication and should not limit publication in any other venue. Copyright remains with the authors. The analysis using the new Regime Legitimation Expert Survey (RLES) demonstrates that non-democratic rulers in post-Soviet countries use specific combinations of legitimating claims to stay in power. Most notably, rulers claim to be the guardians of citizens' socioeconomic well-being. Second, despite recurrent infringements on political and civil rights, they maintain that their power is rule-based and embodies the will of the people, as they have been given popular electoral mandates. Third, they couple these elements with inputbased legitimation strategies that focus on nationalist ideologies, the personal capabilities and charismatic aura of the rulers, and the regime's foundational myth. Overall, the reliance on these input-based strategies is lower in the western post-Soviet Eurasian countries and very pronounced among the authoritarian rulers of Central Asia. Terms of use: Documents in GIGA Research Programme: Legitimacy and Efficiency of Political Systems

show abstract

State >Legitimacy and the (In)significance of Democracy in Post‐Communist Russia

Cited by 61 publications

References 22 publications

Everyday Nationalism: Constructivism for the Masses*

Everyday Nationalism: Constructivism for the Masses*

Corporate Social Responsibility in the Russian Federation

How Do Non-Democratic Regimes Claim Legitimacy? Comparative Insights from Post-Soviet Countries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About