“Evidence-based Policy” and “Policy of Evidence”: The Dilemma of Post-Soviet Societies
https://doi.org/10.23932/2542-0240-2021-14-5-3
Abstract
External and internalchallenges, risks and crisis phenomena operatingin the world and national states requirethe ruling regimes to flexibly restructurethe configuration of relations betweenpower and society. One of the toolsof such communication is the methods of“evidence-based policy”, which involve addressingthe population on the basis of expertand scientific recommendations whendeveloping goals that allow people not onlyto judge their legality, but also to challengeand correct their content. At the same time,in a number of transitional and authoritarianstates, preference is given to the “policy ofevidence” that demonstrates the priorities ofpolitically expedient actions of the authoritiesaimed not at partnership with society, but at mobilizing the support of the populationfor the implementation of the goalsof government policy. In this context, thearticle shows the objective and subjectivelimitations of the use of scientific andexpert data in the public sphere by a numberof post-Soviet states, the peculiarities ofthe correlation of “evidence-based policy”and “policy of evidence” in the activities ofthe ruling regimes, and assesses their prospectsin the short term in modern Russiansociety.
About the Author
A. I. Soloviev
Lomonosov Moscow State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Alexander I. Soloviev - DSc in Politics, Professor, Head of the Department of Political Analysis
119991, Lomonosovskij Av., 27-4, Moscow
References
1. Achkasova G.C., Mel’nik V.A. (eds.) (2016). Communication Technologies in the Processes of Political Mobilization, Moscow: FLINTA-Nauka (in Russian).
2. Baumgartner F., Bryan D., Mortensen B. (2018). Punctuated Equilibrium Theory: Explaning Stability and Change in Public Policymaking. Theories of the Policy Process (eds. Weible C.M., Sabatier P.A., Weible Ch.M., Sabatier P.A.), New York, London: Routledge Taylor, Francis Group, pp. 55–101.
3. Baumgartner F.R., Jones B.D. (1991). Agenda Dinamics and Policy Subsystem. Journal of Politics, vol. 53, no 4, pp. 1044– 1074. Available at: https://people.sc.fsu.edu/~pbeerli/BSC3052/restricted/papers/Baumgartner-Jones-1991-l.pdf, accessed 19.09.2021.
4. Baumgartner F.R., Jones B.D. (eds.) (1993). Agendas and Instability in American Politics, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
5. Borzel T.A. (1998). Organizing Babylon – on the Different Conception of Policy Networks. Public Administration, vol. 76, no 2, pp. 253–273. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9299.00100
6. Cairney P. (2012). Understanding Public Policy. Theories and Issues, London: Palgrave Macmillan.
7. Campbell S., Benita S., Coates E., Davies P., Penn G. (2007). Analysis for Policy: Evidence-based Policy in Practice, London: Government Social Research Unit.
8. Crozier M., Thoenig J.C. (1976). The Regulation of Complex Organized Systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 2, no 4, pp. 547–570. DOI: 10.2307/2391716
9. Dodd L.C. (1994). Political Learning and Political Change: Understanding Development across Time. The Dynamics of American Politics (eds. Dodd L.C., Jillson C.), Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp. 331–364.
10. Garr T.R. (2005). Why Do People Rebel, Saint Petersburg: Piter (in Russian).
11. Giddens A. (1985). Nation-State and Violence. Volume Two of A Contemporary Critique of Historical Materialism, Cambridge: Polity Press.
12. Guriev S., Treisman D.A (2019). Theory of Informational Autocracy. SSRN, April 3, 2019. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3426238
13. Heazl M. (2010). Uncertainty in Policy Making: Values and Evidence in Complex Decisions, London, Washington, DC: Earthscan.
14. Hollyer J.R., Rosendorff B.P., Vreeland J.R. (2015). Transparency, Protest, and Autocratic Instability. American Political Science Review, vol. 109, no 4, pp. 764– 784. DOI: 10.1017/S0003055415000428
15. Ibarra P.R., Kitsuse J.I. (2003). Claims-making Discourse and Vernacular Resources. Challenges and Choices: Constructionist Perspectives on Social Problems (eds. Miller G., Holstein J.A.), Hawthorne, New York.: Aldine de Gruyter, pp. 17–50.
16. Ionescu G. (1966). Control and Contestation in Some One-Party States. Government and Opposition, vol. 1, no 2, pp. 240– 250. DOI: 10.1111/j.1477-7053.1966.tb00373.x
17. Johnston L., Shearing C. (2003). Governing Security: Explorations in Policing and Justice, London: Routledge.
18. Jouvenel B. (1966). The Means of Contestation. Government and Opposition, vol. 1, no 2, рp. 155–174. DOI: 10.1111/j.1477-7053.1966.tb00369.x
19. Kenis P., Schneider V. (1991). Policy Networks and Policy Analysis: Scrutinizing a New Analytical Toolbox. Policy Networks: Empirical Evidence and Theoretical Considerations (eds. Marin B., Mayntz R.), Frankfurt/Boulder, CO: Campus/Westview Press, pp. 25–59.
20. Kharkordin O. (2021). Republic. The Full Version, Saint Petersburg: European University at Saint Petersburg (in Russian).
21. Kostyushev V.V. (2011). Social Protest in the Field of Politics: Potential, Repertoire, Discourse (Experience of Theoretical Interpretation and Empirical Verification). Polis. Political Studies, no 4, pp. 144– 157. Available at: https://elibrary.ru/download/elibrary_16524584_53339364.pdf, accessed 19.09.2021 (in Russian).
22. Ledeneva A.V. (2013). Can Russia Modernise? Sistema, Power Networks and Informal Governance, Cambridge University Press.
23. Levitsky S., Way L. (2020). The New Competitive Authoritarianism. Journal of Democracy, vol. 31, no 1, pp. 51–65. DOI: 10.1353/jod.2020.0004
24. Linz J. (1993). The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes: Crisis, Breakdown and Reequilibration. Problems of Eastern Europe, no 39–40. Available at: https://vtoraya-literatura.com/pdf/problemy_vostochnoy_evropy_39-40_1993_text.pdf, accessed 19.09.2021 (in Russian).
25. Lushnikov D.A. (2019). Government-Sponsored Non-Governmental Organizations (GONGO): Genesis of the Problems, Interpretation and Functions. Polis. Political Studies, no 2, pp. 137–148 (in Russian). DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2019.02.10
26. Melville A.Yu. (2011). The Experience of Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis of the Factors of Democratization. Method. Moscow Yearbook of Works of Social Science Disciplines (ed. Il’in M.), Moscow: INION RAN, pp. 295–318 (in Russian).
27. Melville A.Yu. et al. (eds.) (2007). The Political Atlas of Modernity: The Experience of Multidimensional Statistical Analysis of the Political Systems of Modern States, Moscow: MGIMO-University (in Russian).
28. Melville A.Yu., Mironyuk M.G. (2020). “Political Atlas of the Modern World” Revisited. Polis. Political Studies, no 6, pp. 46–61 (in Russian). DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2020.06.04
29. Palagicheva A.V. (2021). Political Demobilization of Protest Activity of Citizens in Modern Russia, Yaroslavl’ (in Russian).
30. Shaw Jo. (2000). Constitutional Settlements and the Citizen after the Treaty of Amsterdam. European Integration after Amsterdam (eds. Neunreither K., Weener A.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, рp. 290–317.
31. Solovyov A.I. (2019). Political Agenda of the Government, or Why the State Needs the Society? Polis. Political Studies, no 4, pp. 8–26 (in Russian). DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2019.04.02
32. Solovyov A.I., Miller T.V. (2017). Latent Policy Area: An Attempt at Theoretical Identification. E-journal. Public Administration, no 63, pp. 212–232. Available at: https://elibrary.ru/download/elibrary_30148132_10722024.pdf, accessed 19.09.2021 (in Russian).
33. Tarrow S. (2011). The Regime’s Strategy Is the Most Important Factor Determining the Scope and Duration of Protests. Svobodnaya mysl’, no 12, pp. 5–16. Available at: https://elibrary.ru/download/elibrary_23609482_63512704.pdf, accessed 19.09.2021 (in Russian).
34. Trantidis А. (2016). Is Government Contestability an Integral Part of the Definition of Democracy? Politics, vol. 37, no 1, pp. 67–81. DOI: 10.1177/0263395715619635
35. Tuchman B. (2013). The March of Folly. From Troy to Vietnam, Moscow: AST (in Russian).
36. Ushkin S.G. (2016). Towards Better Society, or Why People Become Activists? Monitoring of Public Opinion, no 4, pp. 33– 47 (in Russian). DOI: 10.14515/monitoring.2016.4.03
37. Victor J.N., Montgomery A.H., Lubel V. (eds.) (2018). The Oxford Handbook of Political Networks, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
38. Voloshinskaya A.A., Komarov V.M. (2015). Evidence-Based Policy: Problems and Prospects. Bulletin of the IE RAS, no 4, pp. 90–102. Available at: https://elibrary.ru/download/elibrary_24067429_45322091.pdf, accessed 19.09.2021 (in Russian).
39. White J. (2013). Quack Policy Abusing Science in the Cause of Paternalism, London: The Institute of Economic Affairs.
40. Zahariadis N. (2016). Setting the Agenda on Agenda Setting: Definitions, Concepts, and Controversies. Handbook of Public Policy Agenda Setting (еd. Zahariadis N.), Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 1–24.
41. Zakariya F. (2004). The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy in the United States and beyond, Moscow: Ladomir (in Russian).
42. Zaostrovtsev A. (2020). The Debate about Modernization: A Common Road or Special Ways? Saint Petersburg: European University at Saint Petersburg (in Russian).
Review
For citations:
Soloviev A.I. “Evidence-based Policy” and “Policy of Evidence”: The Dilemma of Post-Soviet Societies. Outlines of global transformations: politics, economics, law. 2021;14(5):61-80. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.23932/2542-0240-2021-14-5-3
Views:
1142
Email this article 