Creating Organisational Strength from Operationalising Restrictions: Welfare Non-profit Organisations in the Russian Fed
- PDF / 312,337 Bytes
- 11 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 4 Downloads / 151 Views
RESEARCH PAPERS
Creating Organisational Strength from Operationalising Restrictions: Welfare Non-profit Organisations in the Russian Federation Jo Crotty1 • Sergej Ljubownikow2
Accepted: 28 August 2020 The Author(s) 2020
Abstract The work of non-profit organisations (NPOs) in non-democratic country contexts tends to be judged on their contribution to the democratisation process rather than the activities they undertake. This neglects the potential impact NPOs have on societies within such contexts. In this study, we highlight that NPOs can influence public policy deployment in the Russian Federation even if they cannot affect public policy itself. By operationalising the very restrictions placed upon them, NPOs use their relationships with the state to effect change within their immediate environment and scope of their operational remit, even if they cannot hold authorities to account or influence policy development. The key to this is strong organising capabilities and engagement with the Russian public. We reflect on the implications of our findings to the understanding of civil society development and NPOs in Russia and in other similar non-democratic contexts. Keywords Hybrid regimes Russia NPOs Civil society and its agents have seen their space for activity limited across both democracies and other political regimes (Anheier et al. 2019; Bloodgood et al. 2014). In particular, hybrid political regimes have attempted to shape a civil society sector that aligns with the regime’s needs & Sergej Ljubownikow [email protected] Jo Crotty [email protected] 1
Institute for Social Responsibility, Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, Lancashire L39 4QP, UK
2
Sheffield University Management School, Conduit Road, Sheffield S10 1FL, UK
(Hale 2010; Karl 1995; Owen and Bindman 2017; Wilde et al. 2018). Hybrid regimes are also referred to as participatory authoritarian (Mainwaring 2012; Owen 2018; Xiaojun and Ge 2016). They combine characteristics of participatory democratic governance such as regular elections with authoritarian tendencies such as a dominant party of power and/or restrictions on civil liberties such as limits on press freedoms and/or limits on freedom of association (Diamond 2002; Wigell 2008). In line with such tendencies, hybrid regimes seek to align civil society with their own goals, through restricting the public sphere and setting clear boundaries on the activities civil society agents, including non-profit organisations (NPOs), can pursue (Karl 1995; Wilde et al. 2018). Thus, hybrid regimes tend to focus on shaping the scope of NPOs activities in particular of those that can challenge governance arrangement. A key aspect to this is restricting organisational engagement in activities that in the literature would fall under the advocacy umbrella (Almog-Bar and Schmid 2014) and which could be termed as big ‘P’ politics; that is to say, activity aligned to party politics, (shaping and influencing) policymaking, or attempts to hold the state to account (Hale 2010; Richter and Hatch 2
Data Loading...
