DOI
https://doi.org/10.31429/26190567-19-4-6-24How to Cite
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2018 Александр Иванович Соловьев
Abstract
The author analyzes present-day characteristics of cooperation of national state and civil society institutions, now that public politics went into social networks. This type of communication, caused by the new role of politico-administrative coalitions of the ruling elite, requires the revision of traditional approaches in many respects. In this connection, the author draws the readers’ attention to new forms of dialogue between the people and the governance caused by informal communication among the elite in the ruling minority; these informal communications affect the nature of decision-making on the state level. While analyzing these processes on the basis of institutional and networking methods, the author characterizes the basic mechanisms and the channels of goal-setting, the respective ways and proceedings of business communication of interactive individuals. On the basis of his research, the author singles out structural characteristics of cooperation between the state and the society indecision-making on the state level. It follows that there exist three relatively independent levels: diversified network coalitions that can, under certain circumstances, influence centres of decision-making; hierarchic formalized state governance structures exposed to permanent pressure on the part of networking, and administrative structures where the configuration of decision-making process takes place as it is.It means that under existing conditions the predominant influence upon state structures is exercised by actors who operate through networking mechanisms of the ruling class organizations (clicks, clientele, etc.) which fact undermines the possibility to realize common interests. Changing the state of things obstructed both by the passive stand of the majority of citizens concerning well-established) governance practices and the actions of the ruling minority who use their advantages to realize their own interests with the help of hybrid interests (disruption of political influence of the messengers of civil interests) The possibilities to overcome this obstruction in future depend on the transformation of the public form of state power organization and on the improvement of its application proceedings.
Keywords
References
Alexejeva, T. (2017). Politicheskije nauki na fone menyajushchikhsja kartin mira [Political Sciences Against the Background of Alternating Pictures of the World]. In: A. Solovjov (Ed.) Politicheskaja refleksija, teorija I metodologija nauchhykh issledovanij [Political Reflection, Theory and Methodology of Research] (pp. 48–64). Moscow: ROSSPEN.
Barsukova, S. (2015). Esse o neformal’noj ekonomike ili 16 ottenkov serogo [Essay on Informal Economics or 16 Shades of Grey]. Moscow: Izdatel’skij dom VShE.
Bourdieu, P. (2017). O gosudarstve [On the State]. Moscow: Izdatel’skij dom Delo.
Il’in, M., Kudrjashova, I. (Eds.) (2008). Suverenitet: transformatsija ponjatij i praktik [Sovereignty: Transformation of Concepts and Practices]. Moscow: MGIMO-Universitet.
Castells, M. (2016). Vlast’ kommunikatsii [Power of Communication]. Moscow: Izdatel’skij dom VShE.
Kurochkin, A. (2011). Politika v uslovijakh setevogo obshchestva: novaja struktura I soderzhanije [Politics under Networking Society: New Structure and Content]. Istoricheskije, filisofskije, politicheskije I yuridicheskije nauki, kul’turologija i iskusstvovedenije. Voprosy teorii I praktiki [Historical, Philosophical, Political, Juridical Sciences, Culturology and Art Criticism. Problems of Theory and Practice], 3, 113–119.
Malinova, O. Yu. (2015). Konstruirovanije smyslov. Issledovanije simvolicheskoi politiki v sovremennoj Rossii [Construction of Senses. Researching Symbolic Politics in Modern Russia]. Moscow: INION.
Malinova, O. Yu. (2012). Simvolicheskaja politika. Kontury problemnogo polja [Symbolic Politics. Contours of the Problem Field]. In: O. Yu. Malinova (Ed.). Simvolicheskaja politika. Konstruirovanije predstavlenij o proshlom kak vlastnyj resurs [Symbolic Politics. Constructing Concepts of the Past as an Authoritative Resource], 1. (pp. 5–16). Moscow: INION.
Mel’vil’, A. (2013). Zachem ”tsarju gory” khoroshije instituty? [Why Does “The King of the Hill” Need Good Universities?]. Politicheskaya nauka [Political Science], 3, 166–167.
Nisnevich, Yu. (2012). Gosudarstvo XXIII veka: tendentsii i problemy pazvitija [State in the XXIIIrd Century: Tendences and the Problems of Development]. Moscow: KnoRus.
North, D. (1997). Instituty, institutsional’nyje izmenenija b funktsionirovanije ekonomiki [Institutes, Institutional Changes in the Functioning of Economics]. Moscow: Fond ekonomicheskoi knigi “Nachala”.
Panov, P. (2006). Institutsionalism ratsional’nogo vybora: potentsial b predely vozmozhnostej [Institutionalism of the Rational choice: Potential and Limited Resources]. In: S. Patrushev (Ed.). Institutsional’naja politologija [Institutional Typology] (pp. 43–92). Moscow: ISP RAS.
Toffler, A. (2004). Tretja volna [The Third Wave]. Moscow: ACT.
Khaioz, N. (2013). Upravlenije, korruptsija i lokal’nyje struktury politicheskogo vlijanija v Shveitsarii [Governance, Corruption and Local Structures of Political Influence in Switzerland]. In: Gaman-Golutvina O. (Ed.). Elity i obshchestvo v sravnitel’nom izmerenii [Elites and Society in Comparative Survey] (pp. 200–208). Moscow: ROSSPEN.
Baumgartner, F. R., Boef, S. L., Boydsun, A. E. (2008). The Decline of the Death Penalty and the Discovery of Innocence. Cambridge: Cambridge univ. press.
Baumgartner, F. R., Green-Pedersen, C., Jones B. D., Mortensen, P., Neytenmans, M., Walgrave, S. (2009). Punctuated Equilibrium in Comparative Perspective. American journal of political science, 53 (3), 602–619.
Baumgartner, F. R., Jones, B. D. (Eds.) (2002). Policy dynamics. Chicago, IL: Chicago univ. press.
Breunig, C. (2011). Reduction, Stasis, and Expansion of Budgets in Advanced Democracies. Comparative political studies, 44 (8), 1060–1088.
Brikland, Т. (1998). Focusing Events, Mobilization, and Agenda Setting. Journal of public policy, 18 (1), 53–74.
Collier, P. (2007). The Bottom Billion: Why the Poorest Countries Are Failing and What Can Be Done about It. Oxford; N.Y.: Oxford University Press.
Crozier, M., Thoenig, J. C. (1976). The Regulation of Complex Organized Systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2 (4), 547–570.
Dowding, K., Hindmoor, A., Iles, R., John, P. (2010). Policy Agendas in Australian politics: The Governor-General’s speeches, 1945–2008. Australian Journal of Political Science, 45 (4), 533–557
Dupuy, F., Thoenig, J. C. (1985). L’Administration en miettes. P.: Le Seuil.
Grindle, M. S. (2007). Good Enough Governance Revisited. Development Policy Review, 25 (5), 533–574.
Ingram, H., Schneider A., Deleon, P. (2007). Social Construction and Policy Design, In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.) Theories of the Policy Process (pp. 93–124). Westview Press.
Ingram, H., Schneider, A. (2015). Making Distinctions: The Social Construction of Target Populations. In F. Fisher, D. Torgerson, A. Durnova, M. Orsini (Eds.) Handbook of Critical Policy Studies (259–273). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Musgrace, R. A. (1959). Theory of Public Finance. N.Y.: McGraw Hill.
Schneider, A., Ingram, Н. (1993). The Social Construction of Target Populations. American Political Science Review, 87 (2), 334–346
Silke, A., Kreisi, H. (2007). The Network Approach. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.) Theories of the Policy Process (рр.129–154). University of California, Davis: Westview Press.