Policy processes in authoritarian settings

Although there is a flourishing body of literature on policy processes (Weible, 2023), it predominantly focuses on western democracies in North America and Europe. Studies that examine how policy actors and institutions shape policy processes in authoritarian settings remain limited in number and scope (for recent exceptions see Babayan et al., 2021; Chan & Zhao, 2016; Hornung et al., 2022; Li & Weible, 2021; Schlaufer et al., 2023; Van den Dool, 2023). Although democracies and autocracies face similar policy challenges, such as social welfare, crisis management, and environmental pollution, due to their institutional characteristics, there are important differences in the process through which policies are formulated, implemented, and contested. It is pivotal to better understand policy processes in autocracies because this helps explain how these political regimes sustain themselves, deliver public services, and respond to crises. This is increasingly urgent given that the world is becoming more and more authoritarian, with most of the world's population now living in autocracies (Nord et al., 2024). Yet, we know surprisingly little about policy processes in these settings, despite these processes affecting policy outcomes for, and thus the daily lives of, billions of people. Domestic policy processes can also affect other countries, as the emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in China and the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine have shown. From a theoretical perspective, it is important to examine policy processes in autocracies because this allows us to identify characteristics of policy processes that are unique to certain political systems and features of the policy process that are universal, which allows us to generate generalizable knowledge. This in turn helps us to better train students and practitioners, allowing them to engage in the policy process in meaningful ways. Examining policy processes in autocracies thus provides added value to scholars as well as to practitioners. This special issue on policy processes in authoritarian settings takes a broad approach and consists of articles that identify the specificities of policy processes and potential drivers of policy change in different countries, analyzing how state and non-state actors interact, how policy decisions are formulated, and how institutional structures shape policy outcomes. Through case studies from China, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Morocco, Russia, Tajikistan, and Tunisia, the authors of the studies in this issue provide new insights into policy processes in these countries, expand the theoretical understanding of policy processes worldwide, and explore whether and how to refine existing policy process theories in autocracies. In our opening article (van den Dool and Schlaufer, 2024), we ask whether policy process theories that were originally developed in democracies (Weible, 2023) are, can, and should be applied to autocracies. The article presents a systematic literature review of 146 English-language peer-reviewed articles that use the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), the Multiple Streams Framework (MSF), the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF), and the Punctuated Equilibrium Theory (PET) in countries classified as authoritarian by the V-Dem Institute at the University of Gothenburg (Nord et al., 2024). The analysis shows that policy process theories, above all the MSF and ACF, have been applied to a variety of autocracies and have helped to identify influential institutions, to explain actors' strategies to influence policies, and have provided a better understanding of the role of ideas, beliefs, and events in policy making. The analysis also summarizes important differences in policy processes in autocracies vis-à-vis democracies: limited possibilities for non-state actors to participate in the policy process, restrictions to venue access, and state-controlled information flows lead to fewer interactions between coalitions and discourses. This can impede policy response and policy change. The article also outlines future research priorities: policy process research should engage with existing literature on authoritarianism, examine the effectiveness of actors' strategies to influence agenda-setting, policy formulation, and implementation, and conduct more comparative research to identify features that are unique to policy processes in autocracies. The second article of this special issue illustrates how the NPF can be applied to an authoritarian country. Chalaya and Uldanov (2024) identify narrative strategies used by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the Russian government to shape public discourse about the 2021 wildfires in Russia, a crisis that attracted significant public attention and criticism. In authoritarian regimes, where governments often control media narratives, NGOs face the challenge of contributing to policy debates without incurring state repression. The authors apply the NPF to analyze how both the government and NGOs frame the crisis, assign blame, and propose solutions. The findings indicate that while NGOs in Russia strategically avoid directly blaming the government, NGOs still highlight systemic failures and call for policy reforms. The government, on the contrary, uses narrative strategies to shift blame to external factors, such as climate change, and to reaffirm its commitment to addressing the issue. This delicate balancing act demonstrates the constrained yet significant role that civil society can play in authoritarian policy processes, where public criticism of the government is highly sensitive. Chalaya and Uldanov (2024) contribute to the broader literature on narrative strategies in authoritarian contexts (Schlaufer et al., 2023, 2022; Uldanov et al., 2021), showing that even in highly controlled environments, non-state actors can contribute to policy debates by carefully crafting narratives that avoid direct confrontation with the state. However, the effectiveness of such strategies is limited by the state's ability to dominate public discourse and suppress dissenting voices. In the third article, Wang and Duckett (2024) focus on lobbying in China and identify lobbying activities used by a policy actor that has received very limited attention in the existing literature so far, namely non-local chambers of commerce—business associations for companies that originate from other cities than the city in which they operate. The authors take the existing literature on lobbying in democracies as starting point, which they contrast to their findings in China. The authors distinguish between insider lobbying, outside lobbying, and brokering. Through interviews, participant observation, and document analysis, Wang and Duckett identify several lobbying activities in China that differ from democracies, including helping local government officials to complete their tasks such as assisting during visits by higher-level officials; establishing Communist Party offices in private companies; and brokering between government and private businesses. The article demonstrates that in authoritarian systems, institutions matter for policy making, as they shape the opportunities and constraints faced by local actors. Axyonova (2024) explores the role of think tanks in crisis policy responses in Russia, highlighting the tension between policy evaluation and state endorsement. Think tanks in authoritarian regimes operate in a constrained environment, where their independence is often curtailed by state interests. The study compares the responses of two Russian state-funded think tanks to the COVID-19 pandemic and the climate crisis. The findings reveal variations in how the crises are framed, which can be linked to the think tanks' institutional ties and their relationship with the state. Sometimes think tanks emphasize polarization and criticize Western governments' handling of the crises while strongly supporting the Russian government. In other incidences, they provide more neutral or rationalized analyses of the pandemic and climate change. Despite these differences, think tanks rarely focus on domestic issues, choosing instead to shift public attention by emphasizing global problems, which diverts attention from crises within Russia. Axyonova's study shows that Russian think tanks play a dual role: they provide valuable policy evaluations, but they also serve as tools of state legitimacy. This duality reflects the broader challenges faced by semi-independent institutions in authoritarian regimes, where the boundaries between policy advice and political endorsement are often blurred. El Haddad (2024) presents the first English-language study on policy entrepreneurship in Morocco, a monarchical autocracy. Based on interviews and document analysis in a case study of the country's 2013 drug pricing reform, the article shows that policy entrepreneurship included careful framing, networking with politicians and bureaucrats, and gathering evidence in support of the proposal to reduce prices. The article thus shows that, in authoritarian environments, policy entrepreneurs can find ways to navigate the system and achieve their goals. The article by Thiel et al. (2024) investigates the failure of sustainable land management policies in Tunisia and links them to the country's democratization efforts and authoritarian past and present. Their analysis centers on the concept of state infrastructural power (Mann, 1984), which refers to the state's capacity to implement policies across its territory. The authors argue that, in Tunisia, neopatrimonialism—a system where personalistic networks and patron-client relationships dominate—has undermined the state's ability to implement effective land management policies. The study demonstrates that while Tunisia has made strides toward democratization, its state institutions remain weak, and informal practices continue to dominate policy implementation. As a result, sustainable land management efforts have been largely unsuccessful, as powerful elites prioritize short-term economic gains over long-term environmental sustainability. This case study illustrates the challenges of policy reform in transitional regimes, where formal democratic institutions coexist with informal power structures. The article contributes to the literature on neopatrimonialism and policy implementation, highlighting the difficulties of achieving policy goals in contexts where state capacity is undermined by personalistic networks. It also raises important questions about the relationship between democratization and state capacity, suggesting that political liberalization alone is insufficient to improve policy outcomes. Panaro's (2024) article examines how post-Soviet authoritarian governments in Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, and Tajikistan have pursued different trajectories in designing and implementing welfare policies. The article demonstrates that welfare policy outcomes vary significantly across countries, influenced by both domestic political dynamics and international pressures. Drawing on the literature of policy convergence, Panaro finds that in some post-Soviet states, welfare policies have converged toward more expansive social safety nets, driven by popular demands and international organizations such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. In others, welfare policies remain minimalist, reflecting the regime's prioritization of elite interests and economic liberalization. The article contributes to the literature on policy conversion and diffusion by showing how in authoritarian regimes, international influences can shape domestic policy choices. Panaro's findings also align with the work of scholars who have examined the relationship between regime type and welfare state development (Haggard & Kaufmann, 2008) by illustrating how authoritarian regimes, under certain conditions, adopt comprehensive welfare policies. This special issue is the first to focus on policy processes in autocracies. It brings together a collection of insightful studies on China, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Morocco, Russia, Tunisia, and Tajikistan that together deepen our understanding of policy processes in authoritarian settings. Focusing on different policy actors and policy stages, from the role of NGOs in shaping public narratives to the influence of think tanks on crisis responses, these articles offer new insights into the complex interactions between state and non-state actors, the importance of institutional frameworks and informal networks, and the strategies used by different policy actors to shape the policy process. The findings presented here show that while authoritarian regimes operate differently compared with democracies, they are not monolithic. Policy processes in autocracies are shaped by a variety of factors, including elite competition, institutional design, and international influences. As the study of authoritarian policy making continues to evolve, future research should focus on exploring the conditions under which authoritarian regimes respond to new policy problems, as well as the effectiveness of strategies used by state and non-state actors to shape policy outcomes in these settings. 尽管关于政策过程的文献数量众多 (Weible, 2023), 但主要集中在北美和欧洲的西方民主国家。关于“政策行动者和制度如何在威权主义背景下影响政策过程”的研究在数量和范围上仍然有限 (for recent exceptions see Babayan, Schlaufer, and Uldanov, 2021; Chan and Zhao, 2016; Van den Dool, 2023; Hornung, Schröder, and Bandelow, 2022; Li and Weible, 2021; Schlaufer et al., 2023)。尽管民主国家和专制国家由于其制度特征而面临着类似的政策挑战, 例如社会福利、危机管理和环境污染, 但它们在制定、实施和竞争政策的过程中存在重要差异。 更好地了解专制国家的政策过程至关重要, 因为这有助于解释这些政治体制如何维持自身、提供公共服务和应对危机。鉴于世界正变得越来越专制, 并且大多数人口现在生活在独裁统治下, 这一点变得越来越紧迫 (Nord et al. 2024)。然而, 尽管这些过程影响着数十亿人的政策结果, 进而影响着他们的日常生活, 但我们对这些背景下的政策过程知之甚少。国内政策过程也会影响其他国家, 正如中国爆发的Sars-Cov-2病毒和俄罗斯对乌克兰的侵略战争所表明的那样。 从理论角度来看, 研究专制政体中的政策过程非常重要, 因为这使我们能够识别不同政治系统中政策过程的特征, 并产生可推广的知识。在此基础上, 我们可以区分特定政治系统所特有的政策过程机制和普遍存在的政策过程特征, 这有助于更好地培训学生和从业者, 帮助他们以有意义的方式参与政策过程。因此, 研究专制政体中的政策过程一事为学者和从业者提供了附加价值。 这是第一期关于威权背景下政策过程的特刊, 采用了广泛的方法, 包括一系列“识别不同国家中政策过程的特殊性和政策变革的潜在驱动因素”的文章, 分析了国家和非国家行动者如何互动、政策决策如何被制定、以及制度结构如何影响政策结果。通过来自中国、哈萨克斯坦、吉尔吉斯共和国、摩洛哥、俄罗斯、塔吉克斯坦和突尼斯的案例研究, 本期研究的作者对这些国家的政策过程提供了新的见解, 扩展了对全球政策过程的理论理解, 并探究了是否以及如何改进专制国家现有的政策过程理论。 在我们收录的第一篇文章 (van den Dool and Schlaufer, 2024)中, 我们提出了一个问题:最初在民主国家发展起来的政策过程理论 (Weible, 2023)是否正在、能够并且应该应用于独裁国家。文章对146篇经过同行评审的英文论文进行了系统性文献综述, 这些论文将倡导联盟框架 (ACF)、多源流框架 (MSF)、叙事政策框架 (NPF)和间断平衡理论 (PET)应用于被哥德堡大学V-Dem研究所 (Nord et al. 2024)归类为威权主义的国家。分析表明, 政策过程理论 (尤其是MSF和ACF)已应用于一系列独裁国家, 并帮助识别有影响力的制度、解释用于影响政策的行动者策略、并帮助更好地理解思想、信仰和事件在政策制定中的作用。分析还总结了独裁政权与民主政权在政策过程中的重要差异:非国家行动者参与政策过程的可能性有限、场所准入受到限制、以及国家控制的信息流导致联盟和话语之间的互动减少。这可能会阻碍政策响应和政策变革。 文章还概述了未来的研究重点:政策过程研究应结合现有的威权主义文献, 分析行动者为“影响议程设置、政策制定与实施”而采用的策略的有效性, 并进行更多的比较研究以确定独裁政权中政策过程所独有的特征。 本期特刊的第二篇文章阐明了NPF如何应用于威权主义国家。Chalaya和Uldanov (2024)确定了非政府组织(NGO)和俄罗斯政府用于影响“有关2021年俄罗斯山火的公共话语”的叙事策略, 这场危机引起了公众的广泛关注和批评。在威权政权中, 政府通常控制媒体叙事, 非政府组织面临着“在不招致国家镇压的情况下对政策辩论作贡献”这一挑战。作者应用NPF来分析政府和非政府组织如何建构危机、分配责任和提出解决方案。 他们的研究结果表明, 尽管俄罗斯的非政府组织策略性地避免直接指责政府, 但非政府组织仍然强调系统性失败并呼吁政策改革。另一方面, 政府使用叙事策略将责任推卸给气候变化等外部因素, 并重申其在解决这一问题方面的承诺。这种微妙的平衡行为表明, 公民社会在威权主义政策过程中可以发挥有限但重要的作用, 因为公众对政府的批评具有高度敏感性。Chalaya和Uldanov (2024)为关于“威权主义背景下的叙事策略”的更广泛文献作贡献 (Schlaufer et al. 2023; 2022; Uldanov et al. 2021), 表明即使在高度受控的环境中, 非国家行动者也可以通过精心设计一系列避免与国家直接对抗的叙事来参与政策辩论。然而, 这些策略的有效性受到“国家主导公共话语和压制不同意见的能力”的限制。 在第三篇文章中, Wang和Ducket (2024)关注中国的游说活动, 并确定了一种政策行动者所使用的游说活动, 该行动者在现有文献中受到的关注非常有限, 这一行动者即非本地商会——来自其他城市的公司商业协会。作者以现有的民主国家游说文献为出发点, 并将其与他们在中国的发现进行了对比。作者区分了内部游说、外部游说和经纪活动 (brokering)。 通过访谈、参与者观察和文件分析, Wang和Duckett确定了中国与民主国家不同的几种游说活动, 包括帮助地方政府官员完成他们的任务, 例如在上级官员访问期间加以协助；在私营公司设立共产党办公室；以及在政府和私营企业之间进行经纪活动。文章表明, 在威权系统下, 制度对政策制定很重要, 因为它们决定了地方行动者面临的机会和制约因素。 Axyonova (2024)探究了智库在俄罗斯危机政策响应中的作用, 强调了政策评价与国家背书之间的紧张关系。专制政权下的智库在受约束的环境中运作, 其独立性往往受到国家利益的限制。该研究比较了两家由俄罗斯国家资助的智库对新冠肺炎大流行和气候危机的响应。研究结果揭示了危机框架的差异, 这可能与智库的机构关系及其与国家的关系有关。有时, 智库会强调极化现象, 并批评西方政府对危机的处理, 同时大力支持俄罗斯政府。在其他情况下, 智库对大流行和气候变化提供更中立或更合理的分析。尽管存在这些差异, 但智库却很少关注国内问题, 而是选择通过强调全球问题来转移公众注意力, 从而转移了公众对俄罗斯国内危机的注意力。 Axyonova的研究表明, 俄罗斯智库发挥着双重作用:它们提供有价值的政策评价, 但也充当国家合法性的工具。这种双重性反映了半独立机构在威权政权下面临的更广泛挑战, 在这些政权中, 政策建议和政治背书之间的界限往往很模糊。 El Haddad (2024) 介绍了关于君主专制国家摩洛哥政策创业的第一篇英语研究。基于对该国2013年药品定价改革案例研究的访谈和文件分析, 文章表明, 政策创业包括精心制定框架、与政客和官僚建立关系网、以及收集支持降价提议的证据。因此, 文章表明, 即使在威权环境中, 政策企业家也能找到应对系统并实现目标的方法。 Thiel、Schütze、Buhrow和Fouzai (2024)的文章研究了突尼斯可持续土地管理政策的失败, 并将其与该国的民主化努力以及过去和现在的专制联系起来。他们的分析以国家基础设施权力 (Mann, 1984)的概念为中心, 该概念指的是国家在其领土范围内实施政策的能力。作者论证, 突尼斯的新家长制——一种以个人主义网络和庇护人-客户关系为主导的制度——削弱了国家实施有效土地管理政策的能力。研究表明, 虽然突尼斯在民主化方面取得了长足进步, 但其国家制度仍然薄弱, 并且非正式实践继续主导政策实施。因此, 可持续土地管理举措在很大程度上没有成功, 因为强大的精英优先考虑短期经济收益而不是长期的环境可持续性。本案例研究阐明了过渡政权中政策改革的挑战, 在过渡政权中, 正式的民主制度与非正式的权力结构共存。 文章为关于新家长制和政策实施的文献作贡献, 强调了在国家能力受到个人主义网络破坏的情况下为实现政策目标而遭遇的困难。文章还提出了关于民主化与国家能力关系的重要疑问, 暗示单靠政治自由化不足以改善政策结果。 Panaro (2024)的文章研究了哈萨克斯坦、吉尔吉斯共和国和塔吉克斯坦的后苏联威权政府在设计和实施福利政策方面如何走上不同的道路。文章表明, 福利政策结果在不同国家之间存在很大差异, 既受到国内政治动态的影响, 也受到国际压力的影响。 基于政策趋同文献, Panaro发现, 在一些后苏联国家, 福利政策已经趋向于更广泛的社会安全网, (Haggard and Kaufmann, (Weible, 2023), a Babayan, Schlaufer Uldanov, 2021; Chan Zhao, 2016; Van den Dool, 2023; Hornung, Bandelow, 2022; Li Weible, 2021; Schlaufer et al., 2023). crisis a a a a crisis. (Nord et al. 2024). a a virus China a a a a a a China, (van den Dool Schlaufer, 2024), (Weible, 2023) a El 146 (ACF), (MSF), (PET) V-Dem (Nord et al. 2024). El MSF ACF, a a a ideas, El a a El El NPF a Chalaya Uldanov (2024) 2021 crisis a a debates NPF crisis, El civil Chalaya Uldanov (2024) a (Schlaufer et al. 2023, 2022; Uldanov et al. 2021), a debates Wang Duckett (2024) China a actor a China. Wang Duckett China a local a El Axyonova (2024) think tanks a crisis think tanks a El think tanks a COVID-19 crisis crisis, a think tanks think tanks crisis think tanks crisis El Axyonova think tanks a El Haddad (2024) El El (2024) (Mann, 1984), a El a a El a El Panaro (2024) El Panaro social El a a Panaro (Haggard Kaufmann, 2008) China, a crisis, a a a