Affiliation:
1. Institute of Scientific Information in Social Sciences Russian Academy of Sciences; Institute for International Studies, MGIMO University
Abstract
The crisis in Russian relations with the West has become a key trigger for a real “Pivot to East” in Russian foreign policy. The new edition of the Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation, approved by the Decree of the President of Russia dated March 31, 2023, proclaims and describes this turn in sufficient detail, expanding the space for scientific diplomacy within the framework of international humanitarian cooperation. This space is filled with “fields of ideas” that are formed within the framework of the relationship of the expert community with decision makers within the country and with foreign colleagues and partners. These “fields of ideas” are currently rather poorly organized “exhibitions of ideas” than “markets of ideas”, where their active production and exchange takes place. The study of the reasons for this using the tools of institutional constructivism, discursive institutionalism and “institutional logic” allowed us to identify the problems of their functioning and possible prospects for development. The latter require the active development of Russian and international “fields of ideas” within the framework of scientific diplomacy in a competitive format, while being ready to compete with both Western and “non-Western” actors. On the way of such transformation, there may be several institutional traps and dead ends, on the successful overcoming of which the success of such a transformation will depend.
Reference17 articles.
1. Bordachev, T.V. & Pyatachkova, A.S. (2018). The Eurasian Cooperation Agenda. The Concept of Greater Eurasia in the Turn of Russia to the East. International Organisations Research Journal, 3, 33–51. DOI: 10.17323/1996-7845-2018-03-02
2. Campbell, J.L. (1998). Institutional Analysis and the Role of Ideas in Political Economy. Theory and society, 3, 377–409.
3. Campbell, J.L., Pedersen, O.K. (2011) Knowledge Regimes and Comparative Political Economy. In D. Béland & R. Cox (Eds.), Ideas and politics in social science research. Oxford: Oxford University Press. P. 167–190.
4. Carstensen, M. & Schmidt, V. (2016). Power through, over and in Ideas: Conceptualizing Ideational Power in Discursive Institutionalism. Journal of European Public Policy, 3, 318–337. DOI: 10.1080/13501763.2015.1115534
5. Drezner, D. (2017). The Ideas Industry: How Pessimists, Partisans, and Plutocrats Are Transforming the Marketplace of Ideas. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017. 360 p.