«Not by Deed, but by Word»: A Discourse-Network Analysis of Parliamentary Discussions of the Bill on Raising the Retirement Age in Russia

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14515/monitoring.2024.2.2495

Keywords:

pension reform, increasing the retirement age, State Duma, communities of parliamentarians, policy justification, policy legitimization, political polarization, discourse network analysis (DNA)

Abstract

The study is aimed at identifying discursive communities in the Russian parliament and mechanisms of their formation during the consideration of initiatives that involve changing the political course. Basing on theories of legitimization and policy justification, the authors identify typical divisions in the speeches of parliamentarians and list thematic blocks for the argumentation of their positions within these divisions. Empirically, the study bases on the materials from the parliamentary discussion on raising the retirement age, an initiative adopted by the Russian parliament and signed by the president in 2018. Using the method of discourse network analysis and an appropriate software, the authors collected and analyzed data on thematic reflecting the polarization of opinions and positions of parliamentarians on the issue under study. Its analysis showed that the polarization of parliamentarians' positions, despite the seeming irreconcilability, is insignificant. Both the parliamentary opposition and the majority faction acted and argued their position within the same thematic blocks and categories, differing only in the divergence (sometimes insignificant) of positions (for/against) on the topics under discussion. Furthermore, the analysis of discourse networks has enabled the authors to assess the importance of parliamentary proceedings in reviewing legislative proposals and shaping the debate, as well as the influence of internal parliamentary institutions on the positions expressed by parliamentarians. Thus, the authors found that words spoken publicly in parliament might more accurately determine a speaker's political position than their specific actions, such as voting on a particular issue.

Acknowledgments. The study was supported by the Russian Science Foundation grant No. 22-78-00201, https://rscf.ru/en/project/22-78-00201/.

Author Biographies

Ilya A. Pomiguev, Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation

  • Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation, Moscow, Russia
    • Cand. Sci. (Polit.), Associate Professor at the Department of Political Science, Head of the Laboratory of Parliamentary and Legislative Research
  • Institute of Scientific Information for Social Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences (INION RAN), Moscow, Russia

    • Researcher at the Department of Political Science

Dmitry V. Alekseev, The Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA)

  • The Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), Moscow, Russia
    • Lecturer at the Department of Political Science and Political Management

Nikita A. Zaripov, HSE University

  • HSE University, Moscow, Russia
    • Master Student, Lecturer at the Department of Politics and Management, Faculty of Social Sciences

References

Алексеев Д. В. Возможности применения политических технологий в законодательном процессе (на примере Государственной Думы VII созыва) // Политическая наука. 2023. № 1. С. 185―205. https://doi.org/10.31249/poln/2023.01.08.

Alekseev D. V. (2023) Possibilities of Using Political Technologies in the Legislative Process (On the Example of the State Duma of the 7th Convocation). Political Science (RU). No. 1. P. 185―205. https://doi.org/10.31249/poln/2023.01.08. (In Russ.)

Алексеев Д. В., Коргунюк Ю. Г., Помигуев И. А. Размежевания в российском законодательном процессе: опыт факторного и дискурс-анализа // Дискурс-Пи. 2022. Т. 19. № 3. С. 10―35. https://doi.org/10.17506/18179568_2022_19_3_10.

Alekseev D. V., Korgunyuk Yu. G., Pomiguev I. A. (2022) Cleavages in the Russian Legislative Process: The Experience of Factor and Discourse Analysis. Discourse-P. Vol. 19. No. 3. P. 10―35. https://doi.org/10.17506/18179568_2022_19_3_10. (In Russ.)

Коргунюк Ю. Г. Концепция размежеваний и теория проблемных измерений: точки пересечения // Полис. Политические исследования. 2019. № 6. C. 95―112. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2019.06.08.

Korgunyuk Yu. G. (2019) Cleavage Theory and Theory of Issue Dimensions: Cross-Points. Polis. Political Studies. No. 6. P. 95―112. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2019.06.08. (In Russ.)

Мясников С. А. Легитимация и обоснование политики: Анализ концептуальных разграничений // Политическая наука. 2019. № 3. С. 222―235. http://www.doi.org/10.31249/poln/2019.03.12.

Myasnikov S. A. (2019) Legitimation and Justification of Policy: Analysis of Conceptual Distinctions. Political Science (RU). No. 3. P. 222―235. http://www.doi.org/10.31249/poln/2019.03.12. (In Russ.)

Окунев И. Ю. Электоральная география. М.: Аспект Пресс, 2023.

Okunev I. Yu. (2023) Electoral Geography. Moscow: Aspekt Press. (In Russ.)

Помигуев И. А., Алексеев Д. В. Обнуление законопроектов: дисконтинуитет как технология блокирования политических решений // Полис. Политические исследования. 2021. №. 4. С. 176―191. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2021.04.13.

Pomiguev I. A., Alekseev D. V. (2021) Resetting Bills: Discontinuity as a Political Technology for Blocking Policy Decision. Polis. Journal of Political Studies. No. 4. P. 176―191. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2021.04.13. (In Russ.)

Помигуев И. А., Фомин И. В., Мальцев А. М. Сетевой подход в законодательных исследованиях: перспективные методы качественного и количественного анализа парламентской деятельности // Политическая наука. 2021. №. 4. С. 31―59. https://doi.org/10.31249/poln/2021.04.02.

Pomiguev I. A., Fomin I. V., Maltsev A. M. (2021) Network Approach in Legislative Studies: Methodological Prospects for Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis of Parliamentary Activity. Political Science (RU). No. 4. P. 31―59. https://doi.org/10.31249/poln/2021.04.02. (In Russ.)

Сабатье П., Дженкинс-Смит Х. Концепция лобби-коалиций: оценка // Публичная политика: от теории к практике / сост. и научн. ред. Н. Ю. Данилова, О. Ю. Гурова, Н. Г. Жидкова. СПб.: Алетейя, 2008. С. 94―154.

Sabatier P., Jenkins-Smith H. (2008) The Concept of Lobby Coalitions: An Assessment. In: Danilova N. Y., Gurova O. Yu., Zhidkova N. G. (eds.) Public Policy: From Theory to Practice. St. Petersburg: Aletheia. P. 94―154. (In Russ.)

Соловьев А. К. Социальные последствия повышения пенсионного возраста // Социологические исследования. 2019. № 3. С. 23―31. https://doi.org/10.31857/S013216250004275-5.

Solovyov A. K. (2019) Social Consequences of Raising the Retirement Age. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya. No. 3. P. 23-31. https://doi.org/10.31857/S013216250004275-5. (In Russ.)

Сунгуров А. Ю., Тиняков Д. К. Административная реформа и ее проекты в современной России: были ли коалиции поддержки? // Общественные науки и современность. 2016. № 2. С. 39―51.

Sungurov A. Y., Tinyakov D. K. (2016) Administrative Reform and Its Projects in Modern Russia: Were There Advocacy Coalitions? Social Sciences and Contemporary World. No. 2. P. 39―51. (In Russ.)

Abulof U., Kornprobst M. (2017) Introduction: The Politics of Public Justification. Contemporary Politics. Vol. 23. No. 1. P. 1―18. https://doi.org/10.1080/13569775.2016.1213073.

Brugger F., Engebretsen R. (2022) Defenders of the Status Quo: Making Sense of the International Discourse on Transfer Pricing Methodologies. Review of International Political Economy. Vol. 29. No. 1. P. 307―335. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2020.1807386.

Huber J., Inglehart R. (1995) Expert Interpretations of Party Space and Party Locations in 42 Societies. Party Politics. Vol. 1. No. 1. P. 73―111. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068895001001004.

Inglehart R. (1977) The Silent Revolution: Changing Values and Political Styles Among Western Publics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Kriesi H., Grande E., Lachat R., Dolezal M., Bornschier S., Frey T. (2006) Globalization and the Transformation of the National Political Space: Six European Countries Compared. European Journal of Political Research. Vol. 45. No. 6. P. 921―956. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2006.00644.x.

Le Foulon Moran C. (2020) Cooperation and Polarization in a Presidential Congress: Policy Networks in the Chilean Lower House 2006―2017. Politics. Vol. 40. No. 2. P. 227―244. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263395719862478.

Leifeld P., Haunss S. (2012) Political Discourse Networks and the Conflict over Software Patents in Europe. European Journal of Political Research. Vol. 51. No. 3. P. 382―409. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2011.02003.x.

Leifeld P. (2013) Reconceptualizing Major Policy Change in the Advocacy Coalition Framework: A Discourse Network Analysis of German Pension Politics. Policy Studies Journal. Vol. 41. No. 1. P. 169―198. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12007.

Leifeld P. (2016) Policy Debates as Dynamic Networks: German Pension Politics and Privatization Discourse. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.

Leifeld P. (2017) Discourse Network Analysis: Policy Debates as Dynamic networks. In: Victor J. N., Lubell M. N., Montgomery A. H. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Political Networks. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. P. 301―326.

Leifeld P. (2020) Policy Debates and Discourse Network Analysis: A Research Agenda. Politics and Governance. Vol. 8. No. 2. P. 180―183. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v8i2.3249.

Lipset S. M., Rokkan S. (1967) Cleavage Structures, Party Systems, And Voter Alignments: An Introduction. In: Lipset S. M., Rokkan S. (eds.) Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-National Perspective. New York, NY: Free Press. P. 1―61.

Nagel J. H. (2006) Occam no, Archimedes yes. In: Bara J., Weale A. (eds.) Democratic Politics and Party Competition. London: Routledge. P. 143―158. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203965771.

Newman M. E. J. (2006) Modularity and Community Structure in Networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Vol. 103. No. 23. P. 8577―8582. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0601602103.

Noble B. (2018) Authoritarian Amendments: Legislative Institutions as Intraexecutive Constraints in Post-Soviet Russia. Comparative Political Studies. Vol. 53. No. 9. P. 1417―1454. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414018797941.

Schmid N., Sewerin S., Schmidt T. S. (2020) Explaining Advocacy Coalition Change with Policy Feedback. Policy Studies Journal. Vol. 48. No. 4. P. 1109―1134. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12365.

Sulkin T., Schmitt C. (2014) Partisan Polarization and Legislators’ Agendas. Polity. Vol. 46. No. 3. P. 430―448. https://doi.org/10.1057/pol.2014.9.

von Soest C., Grauvogel J. (2017) Identity, Procedures and Performance: How Authoritarian Regimes Legitimize Their Rule. Contemporary Politics. Vol. 23. No. 3. P. 287―305. https://doi.org/10.1080/13569775.2017.1304319.

White J., Ypi L. (2011) On Partisan Political Justification. American Political Science Review. Vol. 105. No. 2. P. 381―396. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055411000074.

Downloads

Published

2024-05-07

How to Cite

Pomiguev И. А., Alekseev Д. В., & Zaripov Н. А. (2024). «Not by Deed, but by Word»: A Discourse-Network Analysis of Parliamentary Discussions of the Bill on Raising the Retirement Age in Russia. Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes, (2), 116–140. https://doi.org/10.14515/monitoring.2024.2.2495

Issue

No. 2 (2024)

Section

STATE AND SOCIETY

License

Copyright (c) 2024 Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes Journal (Public Opinion Monitoring) ISSN 2219-5467

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.