Social problems, political issues

Marriage and divorce in the USSR

Datos Bibliográficos

ID11601084
AutoresAndrea Stevenson Sanjian (Bucknell University, autor de correspondencia)
Año1991
Volumen43
Número4
Páginas629-649
Fecha de publicación1991-01-01
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessNo
TipoARTICLE
RevistaSoviet Studies (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0038-5859
EditorialRoutledge (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/09668139108411952
OpenAlexW2005703105
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas4
Referencias citadas20

GROUP APPROACHES to policy making in the USSR have generally focused on what might be termed 'internal' decision making: whether the participants represent bureaucratic or occupational or opinion groups, they are sets of actors who may or may not have a formal role in policy formation, but who at least provide much of the advice and information used by those who do make policy, and/or are then responsible for implementation. Hence the literature on policy making includes studies of the role of educators on education policy, the military on defence policy, ministry personnel on policy in their respective domains, and so on.1 The emphasis on 'internal' actors, though, and the interests and preferences they may bring to an issue, distracts from the fact that much policy has been, and still is, made without the participation of those directly affected by it. Certainly, the notion that issues are resolved in total isolation from any pressure from below is inaccurate, especially today when the power of that pressure is transforming the Soviet system. Important sectors of the mass public are still without an active role in shaping policies affecting them, though, and must settle instead for passive, or very indirect, influence. The legal barriers to organisation may have finally fallen but others remain, including attitudinal ones and those owing to a simple lack of experience. Groups are none the less highly relevant to analyses of policy making, for it is clear from the outcomes that policy often targets specific groups, including those without any institutionalised existence through which to articulate their own interests. One of the most striking developments of the Gorbachev era is the evolution in official attitudes towards group interests. Still, if it has become easier for groups to organise and express demands, exercising actual influence remains difficult, however much mass support their agendas may claim. Though competitive elections have been introduced, for example, candidates do not depend on groups for contributions and other forms of campaign support, eliminating a major lever

Political economy · Political science · Politics · Sociology · Family Dynamics and Relationships · Intergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving · Law · Urbanization and City Planning