Responding to crises in authoritarian environments
Russian think tanks between policy evaluation and state endorsement
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 4812366 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Vera Axyonova (0000-0002-0721-9860, University of Vienna, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2024 |
| Volume | 41 |
| Issue | 6 |
| Pages | 941-960 |
| Publication date | 2024-11-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Review of Policy Research (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1541-132X • E-ISSN: 1541-1338 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/ropr.12601 |
| OpenAlex | W4391607711 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 6 |
| References cited | 27 |
In the literature on policy advice and analytical communities in democratic settings, think tanks are often assumed to be carriers of new ideas that serve as an informed and independent voice in policy debates. However, how much intellectual independence do think tanks have in authoritarian environments? This article tackles this question in a case study of Russian think tanks' discursive responses to two protracted crises: the COVID-19 pandemic and climate change. The study employs a combination of deductive and inductive techniques to identify the discursive strategies used by think tank experts in their publications covering the crises. The findings suggest that there are differences in how think tanks communicate crises, which can be attributed to their institutional structures and position vis-à-vis the state. In some cases, the think tanks resort to polarization and discreditation of Western governments' crisis response, while openly endorsing the Russian state. In other cases, they engage in rationalization and more neutral analyses of the pandemic and climate change. However, regardless of these differences, they rarely concentrate on domestic challenges. Instead, they geopoliticize the crises, overemphasizing problematic developments elsewhere in the world, thus shifting attention in the public discourse away from domestic emergencies
Authoritarianism · Climate change · Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19 · Democracy · Economics · Pandemic · Polarization (electrochemistry · Political economy · Political science · Politics · Position (finance · Rationalization (economics · Sociology · State (computer science · Think tanks · Electoral Systems and Political Participation · Law · Nonprofit Sector and Volunteering · Political Influence and Corporate Strategies
Policymaking in an age of polycrises
Crossing the red lines? Academic ‘freedom’ in Central Asia
Is research from government agencies more favored by policymakers? Empirical evidence from a scientometric analysis
Policy processes in authoritarian settings
Knowledge as power
Policy knowledge production in de-democratizing contexts
Political Order in Changing Societies
Do think tanks matter?
Knowledge Actors and Transnational Governance
Leadership in Times of Crisis
Patronal Politics
The role of epistemic communities
Governing the Pandemic
Politics Without Principle
The Honest Broker
Hiding in Plain Sight
Representing the politics of the greenhouse effect
Socio-economic Development and the Politics of Expertise in Putin’s Russia
Discourse and manipulation
Think Tanks in a Limited Access Order
Revisiting demand, politicization and externalization in authoritarian political regimes
Three strategies for attaining legitimacy in policy knowledge
Recycling Bins, Garbage Cans or Think Tanks? Three Myths Regarding Policy Analysis Institutes
Understanding the Knowledge Gap
Discursive Agency
Crisis exploitation
Proximity and distance
How do executives communicate about crises? A framework for comparative analysis
The Causal Logic of Critical Junctures
| Unique citing works | 6 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 3 |
| Citation span | 2024 - 2025 (2) |
| Citation velocity | recent |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 6 |