• A
  • A
  • A
  • ABC
  • ABC
  • ABC
  • А
  • А
  • А
  • А
  • А
Regular version of the site

Article

Три дилеммы управления в гибридном режиме: Россия от Путина до Путина

Post-Soviet Affairs. 2013. P. 1-26.
Petrov N., Hale H., Lipman M.
This article investigates how hybrid regimes supply governance by examining a series of dilemmas (involving elections, the mass media, and state institutions)that their rulers face. The authors demonstrate how regime responses to these dilemmas – typically efforts to maintain control while avoiding outright repression and societal backlash – have negative outcomes,including a weakening of formal institutions, proliferation of “substitutions” (e.g., substitutes for institutions),and increasing centralization and personalization of control. Efforts by Russian leaders to disengage society from the sphere of decision-making entail a significant risk of systemic breakdown in unexpected ways. More specifically, given significantly weakened institutions for interest representation and negotiated compromise, policy-making in the Russian system often amounts to the leadership’s best guess (ad hoc manual policy adjustments) as to precisely what society will accept and what it will not, with a significant possibility of miscalculation.Three case studies of the policy-makingprocess are presented: the2005 cash-for-benefits reform, plans for the development of the Khimki Forest,and changes leading up to and following major public protests in 2011–2012.