Governance networks and vertical power in Russia – Environmental impact assessments and collaboration between state and non-state actors

ABSTRACT

This article examines how governance networks and “vertical”, that is, hierarchical or coercive, modes of governance are related to each other under the circumstances of increasing authoritarianism in Russia. The empirical data from nine in-depth case studies focusing on negotiations between administrations, non-governmental organisations, companies, and experts during environmental impact assessments were collected in the Russian regions of Krasnodar and Irkutsk. The data confirm that regional and federal authorities resort to control and coercion, but also promote cooperation in order to solve policy problems and compensate for the poor performance of formal institutions.

KEYWORDS:

• Authoritarianism
• civil society
• Putin
• Russian Federation

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank the Metro Foundation for financing the 6-year research project on governance in the Russian regions.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors

Sabine Kropp is a professor at the Free University Berlin. She recently co-edited the “Fraenkel-Haeberle, Cristina, Sabine Kropp, Francesco Palermo and Karl-Peter Sommermann (eds). 2015. Citizen participation and multilevel governance. Leiden, Boston: Brill Nijhoff.”

Johannes Schuhmann is a researcher at the Institute of German and International Party Law and Party Research of the Heinrich Heine University Dusseldorf.

Notes

1. It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss the question of whether Russia is better classified as an “authoritarian” or a “hybrid” regime. We chose the term “increasingly authoritarian” to clarify that Russia has undergone a significant change since 2000.

2. China also experimented with network governance; see Aasland et al. in this symposium.

3. Since the Ukraine crisis, collaboration between state and non-state actors within such international regimes has been considerably hampered.

4. See http://asozd2.duma.gov.ru/main.nsf/%28SpravkaNew%29?OpenAgent&RN=102766-6&02. Accessed 10 August 2013.

5. See, for instance, Law 131-FZ ‘On General Organisational Principles of Local Self-Government in the Russian Federation’; Law 7-FZ ‘On Non-Commercial Organisations'; Federal’nyi Zakon RF ot 5 Aprelia 2010 No 40_FZ 2010.

6. Federal Law No.174-FZ “On Ecological Expertise: http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_8515/. Accessed 28 October 2015.

7. The cases do not reflect the further authoritarian turn which started after the protests on Bolotnaya Square in Moscow in December 2011. Media coverage of more recent EIAs, however, suggests that our findings are still valid (Greenpeace 2013a, 2013b).

8. Interviews with the head of an NGO and editor in chief of BABR.ru in Irkutsk as well as with heads of the NGOs EWNC and WOOP in Krasnodar, conducted between March and October 2008.

9. Interview with the head of the NGO WOOP in Krasnodar, conducted between March and October 2008.

10. Interviews with the head and an employee of the NGO ‘Baikal Wave’ in Irkutsk’, and with a former employee of Rosprirodnadzor in Krasnodar, conducted between March and October 2008.

11. Interview with a former employee Rosprirodnadzor, conducted between March and October 2008.

12. Interview with the head of an environmental NGO in Krasnodar, conducted between March and October 2008.

13. Interview with the head of the NGO EWNC in Krasnodar, conducted between March and October 2008.

14. Interviews with editor of ‘Pravda Sibirskaya’, member of ‘Council for safe use of nuclear energy in Irkutsk’ and program director of Lake Baikal at Greenpeace Russia in Moscow, conducted between March and October 2008.