Opportunities for Public Participation Influence on the Russian Waste Management Reform: Statistical Analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22394/1726-1139-2022-12-87-99Keywords:
Russian waste management reform, civic participation, political and administrative process, hybrid regime, institutions in non-democracies, regional political regimeAbstract
The article is devoted to the analysis of the opportunities for civic participation to influence the results of policy processes in hybrid regimes on the example of the modern Russian waste management reform. The goal of the article is to identify to what extent and under what conditions civic participation was a significant factor in the outputs of the reform in the regions. Based on the provisions of the concepts of authoritarian responsiveness and regional political regimes, assumptions were made about the significance of the factor of civic participation under conditions of combination with certain features of the regions: the level of consolidation of the political system, the openness of the regional bureaucracy, and the degree of dependence on the federal center. Data for 69 constituent entities of the Russian Federation for 2018-2019 were analyzed by statistical methods (models of ordinal and logistic regressions). The results of the analysis show that civic participation was a significant factor in reform outcomes in regions with less transparent bureaucracies and in regions less dependent on the center. At the same time, apart from these conditions, the level of civic participation was not a significant factor in itself. Thus, we can conclude that in hybrid regimes, civic participation can be a significant factor in the policy process if a) the elites are more susceptible to the risks of protest activity (in regions less dependent on the center, the support of the population is more important to the authorities), or b ) if there are informal channels of interaction between the state and society (regions with more closed administrations), which is consistent with the provisions of the concept of authoritarian responsiveness. In turn, the results of the study testify in favor of the “limited pluralism” approach, according to which civic participation in nondemocracies, although performing the main function of ensuring regime stability, can nevertheless have a significant impact on the outcomes of policy processes under certain conditions.Downloads
References
Бюллетень Счетной палаты РФ (Мусорная реформа). 2020. № 9.
Гайворонский Ю. Региональные политические режимы в России: концептуальные новации и возможности измерения // Полития: Анализ. Хроника. Прогноз. 2015. № 2. С. 21-37.
Никовская Л., Скалабан И. Гражданское участие: особенности дискурса и тенденции реального развития // Полис. Политические исследования. 2017. № 6. С. 43-60.
Никовская Л., Якимец В. Институциональное развитие межсекторного партнерства в России // Полис. Политические исследования. 2016. № 5. С. 37-48.
Пупкова Ю., Шевцов Ю. Реформа сферы обращения с отходами: общественная реакция в сети Интернет (ч. 1) // Общество: социология, психология, педагогика. 2019. № 11. URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/reforma-sfery-obrascheniya-s-othodami-obschestvennaya-reaktsiya-v-seti-internet-chast-1 (дата обращения: 16.09.2022).
Пупкова Ю., Шевцов Ю. Реформа сферы обращения с отходами: общественная реакция в сети Интернет (часть 2) // Общество: социология, психология, педагогика. 2020. № 2. С. 27-32.
Скалабан И. Социальное, общественное и гражданское участие: к проблеме осмысления понятий // Вестник Томского государственного университета. Философия. Социология Политология. 2011. № 1(13). С. 130-139.
Тарасенко А., Кулмала М. Ветеранские организации как заинтересованные группы: возможности и ограничения клиентелизма для защиты социальных прав в регионах России. Препринт. СПб.: Издательство Европейского университета в Санкт-Петербурге, 2015.
Тиняков Д. Влияние институционализированного гражданского участия на реализацию политических курсов в регионах РФ: случаи административной реформы и реформы системы по обращению с отходами: дис.... канд. полит. наук: 23.00.02. М., 2022.
Туровский Р. Региональные политические режимы в России: к методологии анализа // Полис. Политические исследования. 2009. № 2. С. 77-95.
Тюрин И., Петросова К., Сергеева А. Некоторые проблемные и спорные аспекты практического опыта реализации реформы обращения с твердыми бытовыми отходами в Российской Федерации // Вопросы Российского и международного законодательства. 2020. № 10. С. 194-212.
Baogang H., Warren M. Authoritarian deliberation: The deliberative turn in Chinese political development // Perspectives on politics. 2011. Vol. 9. N 2. P. 269-289.
Bindman E., Kulmala M., Bogdanova E. NGOs and the policy-making process in Russia: The case of child welfare reform // Governance. 2019. Vol. 32. N 2. P. 207-222.
Chen J., Pan J., Xu Y. Sources of authoritarian responsiveness: A field experiment in China // American journal of political science. 2016. Vol. 60. N 2. P. 383-400.
Dimitrov M. What the party wanted to know: Citizen complaints as a "barometer of public opinion" in communist Bulgaria // East European Politics and Societies. 2014. Vol. 28. N 2. P. 271-295.
Foster K. Associations in the embrace of an authoritarian state: State domination of society? // Studies in comparative international development. 2001. Vol. 35. N 4. P. 84-109.
Gallagher M. "Reform and openness": Why China's economic reforms have delayed democracy // World Politics. 2002. Vol. 54. N 3. P. 338-372.
Molinar J. Counting the Number of Parties: An Alternative Index // The American Political Science Review. 1991. Vol. 85. N 4. P. 1383-1391.
Owen C. Participatory authoritarianism: From bureaucratic transformation to civic participation in Russia and China // Review of international studies. 2020. Vol. 46. N 4. P. 415-434.
Owen C. The Struggle for Meaning of Obshchestvennyi Kontrol' in Contemporary Russia: Civic Participation between Resistance and Compliance after the 2011-2012 Elections // Europe-Asia Studies. 2017. Vol. 69. N 3. P. 379-400.
Owen C., Bindman E. Civic Participation in a Hybrid Regime: Limited Pluralism in Policymaking and Delivery in Contemporary Russia // Government and Opposition. 2019. Vol. 54. N 1. P. 98-120.
Petrov N., Lipman M., Hale H. Three dilemmas of hybrid regime governance: Russia from Putin to Putin // Post-Soviet Affairs. 2014. Vol. 30. N 1. P. 1-26.
Sendhil R, et al. Data Analysis Tools and Approaches (DATA) in Agricultural Sciences. ICAR-Indian Institute of Wheat and Barley Research, 2017.
Tarasenko A. Russian Welfare Reform and Social NGOs: Strategies for Claim-making and Service Provision in the Case of Saint Petersburg // East European Politics. 2015. Vol. 31. N 3. P. 294-313.
Teets J. Let Many Civil Societies Bloom: The Rise of Consultative Authoritarianism in China // The China quarterly. 2013. Vol. 213. P. 19-38.
Wenfang T. Populist Authoritarianism: Chinese Political Culture and Regime Sustainability. NY: Oxford University Press, 2016.
