Problem complexity and narratives in Moscow's waste controversy

IF 2.7 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE European Policy Analysis Pub Date : 2021-05-24 DOI:10.1002/epa2.1115
Caroline Schlaufer, Tatiana Khaynatskaya, Marina Pilkina, Victoria Loseva, Sanjay Kumar Rajhans
{"title":"Problem complexity and narratives in Moscow's waste controversy","authors":"Caroline Schlaufer,&nbsp;Tatiana Khaynatskaya,&nbsp;Marina Pilkina,&nbsp;Victoria Loseva,&nbsp;Sanjay Kumar Rajhans","doi":"10.1002/epa2.1115","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Public problems are not complex per se but are defined as such. This article explores how problem definition in terms of complexity is strategically used in narratives to expand or contain a policy conflict. We draw on the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) to examine how actors use narratives to define problems and link these problems to solutions and characters. Empirically, we examine narratives used in the Moscow waste management debate by drawing on content analysis of online texts and interviews. The results show that government actors seek to contain conflict by assigning less complexity to the waste problem than nongovernmental actors, who expand conflict by defining the waste problem as politically complex. Narratives with high problem complexity include many victims and villains and propose multifaceted and institutional solutions, while narratives with low problem complexity focus on technocratic solutions. Implications for the Russian waste controversy and the NPF are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":52190,"journal":{"name":"European Policy Analysis","volume":"7 S2","pages":"303-323"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/epa2.1115","citationCount":"15","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Policy Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/epa2.1115","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 15

Abstract

Public problems are not complex per se but are defined as such. This article explores how problem definition in terms of complexity is strategically used in narratives to expand or contain a policy conflict. We draw on the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) to examine how actors use narratives to define problems and link these problems to solutions and characters. Empirically, we examine narratives used in the Moscow waste management debate by drawing on content analysis of online texts and interviews. The results show that government actors seek to contain conflict by assigning less complexity to the waste problem than nongovernmental actors, who expand conflict by defining the waste problem as politically complex. Narratives with high problem complexity include many victims and villains and propose multifaceted and institutional solutions, while narratives with low problem complexity focus on technocratic solutions. Implications for the Russian waste controversy and the NPF are discussed.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
莫斯科废物争议中的问题复杂性与叙事
公共问题本身并不复杂,但定义就是这样。本文探讨了如何在叙事中战略性地使用复杂性的问题定义来扩大或遏制政策冲突。我们借鉴叙事政策框架(NPF)来研究行动者如何使用叙事来定义问题,并将这些问题与解决方案和人物联系起来。根据经验,我们通过对在线文本和采访的内容分析,研究了莫斯科废物管理辩论中使用的叙事。结果表明,与非政府行为者相比,政府行为者试图通过减少废物问题的复杂性来遏制冲突,而非政府行为者则通过将废物问题定义为政治复杂性来扩大冲突。问题复杂性高的叙事包括许多受害者和恶棍,并提出了多方面和制度性的解决方案,而问题复杂性低的叙事侧重于技术官僚的解决方案。讨论了对俄罗斯废物争议和NPF的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
European Policy Analysis
European Policy Analysis Social Sciences-Public Administration
CiteScore
9.70
自引率
10.00%
发文量
32
期刊最新文献
Issue Information What determines effectiveness in the policy process? Is open strategy a good fit for Public-Private hybrid organizations? Triggering policy learning via formal EU evaluation requirements in the case of Cohesion Policy Between institutions and narratives: Understanding collective action in innovation policy processes
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1