Abstract
AbstractThe integration of the social–psychological social identity approach to policy process research has recently generated new insights on policy-making. Empirical applications for established democracies and multilevel settings such as the European Union have identified five general types of social identities that are relevant for the preferences and behavior of policy actors and their stability and change over time. Social identities are based on joint memberships in social groups, such as organizations, demographic/biographical identities, sectors, locations, and informal opportunities for exchange (which may result in programmatic groups and identities). Some of these social groups, above all pluralistic interest associations and political parties, are directly related to the settings of embedded democracies. This article sheds light on the traveling capacity of the Social Identities in the Policy Process (SIPP) perspective by applying it to the Russian political system. An analysis of policy actors’ social identities in two federal ministries shows that in autocracies, interest intermediation, legitimacy, and influence on policy processes run through professional and informal groups when competing organizations and democratic institutions are absent. The results indicate that the SIPP perspective is adaptable to policy processes in different contexts but that the importance of identity types varies.
Funder
Technische Universität Braunschweig
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Sociology and Political Science
Reference74 articles.
1. Bandelow, Nils C., Johanna Hornung, and Marc Smyrl. 2021. Theoretical foundations of the programmatic action framework (PAF). European Policy Analysis 7(1):14–27. https://doi.org/10.1002/epa2.1083.
2. Bindman, Eleanor, Meri Kulmala, and Elena Bogdanova. 2019. NGos and the policy-making process in Russia: the case of child welfare reform. Governance 32(2):207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12366.
3. Bornschier, Simon, Silja Häusermann, Delia Zollinger, and Céline Colombo. 2021. How “us” and “them” relates to voting behavior—social structure, social identities, and electoral choice. Comparative Political Studies https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414021997504.
4. BP. 2021. Statistical review of world energy, 70th edition. https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/energy-economics/statistical-review/bp-stats-review-2021-full-report.pdf. Accessed 24 Feb 2022.
5. Clifford, Scott. 2017. Individual differences in group loyalty predict partisan strength. Political Behavior 39(3):531–552. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-016-9367-3.
Cited by
6 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献