Факторы массовой поддержки правительства в условиях проведения структурных реформ

Любая страна, чтобы не быть сброшенной с «парохода современности», должна периодически проводить масштабные внутренние преобразования. Однако структурные реформы редко проходят безболезненно для населения. Как показывают исследования на материале США и европейских стран, частым последствием таких реформ оказывается снижение уровня поддержки правительства. Этот процесс может проявляться многообразно: и в падении рейтингов одобрения власти или снижении уровня доверия правительству, и в уменьшении готовности голосовать за представителей правящей партии на выборах. Всё это может, в свою очередь, привести к проблемам с легитимностью действующей власти и - в худшем сценарии - дестабилизации политической системы страны в целом. Возможно ли соблюсти баланс между необходимостью преобразований и сохранением доверия к власти со стороны общества? Может ли правительство провести болезненную реформу без того, чтобы стать объектом всеобщей ненависти? Какие условия могут этому благоприятствовать? Хотя факторы массовой поддержки власти являются одной из центральных тем в современной политической науке, внятные ответы на поставленные выше вопросы пока что не получены. В настоящей статье исследуются возможности правительства по сохранению массовой поддержки в условиях проведения непопулярных структурных реформ. Особое внимание уделяется использованию стратегии фреймирования общественного мнения. На основе анализа теоретической литературы и эмпирических исследований политической поддержки в России выделяются основные факторы, которые могут способствовать эффективности данной стратегии в отечественном контексте.

1. Российское здравоохранение: как выйти из кризиса / А.Г. Вишневский [и др.]. М.: ГУ ВШЭ, 2006. 25 с.

2. Савин Н.Ю., Чмель К.Ш. Пределы применимости теории медийных фреймов в недемократических режимах // Коммуникации. Медиа. Дизайн. 2017. Т. 2, № 4. С. 49-66. EDN: XOFASD

3. Сенашенко В.С., Ткач Г.Ф. О тенденциях реформирования российской высшей школы // Высшее образование в России. 2010. № 10. С. 29-42. EDN: MWOJLL

4. Сироткина Е.В., Завадская М.А. Когда власть несет ответственность за экономический кризис: исследование атрибуции ответственности власти в сравнительной перспективе // Политическая наука. 2016. № 4. C. 242-261. EDN: XHWCIR

5. Шишкин P.В. Российское здравоохранение: реформы или кризис? // Журнал новой экономической ассоциации. 2014. № 3. С. 162-164. EDN: STXVDF

6. Barta Z. In the Red: the politics of public debt accumulation in developed countries. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan press, 2018. 210 p. DOI: 10.3998/mpub.9726915

7. Beazer Q.H., Reuter O.J. Who is to blame? Political centralization and electoral punishment under authoritarianism // The journal of politics. 2019. Vol. 81, N 2. P. 648-662. DOI: 10.1086/701834 EDN: VPGUBD

8. Beissinger M.R. Sasse G. An end to "patience"? The Great Recession and economic protest in Eastern Europe // Mass politics in tough times: opinions, votes and protest in the great recession / N. Bermeo, L. Bartels (eds). Oxford: Oxford university press, 2014. P. 334-371.

9. Brokers, voters, and clientelism: The puzzle of distributive politics / S.C. Stokes, T. Dunning, M. Nazareno, V. Brusco. Cambridge: Cambridge university press, 2013. 344 p.

10. Brooks C., Manza J. Why do welfare states persist? // The journal of politics. 2006 a. Vol. 68, N 4. P. 816-827. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00472.x

11. Brooks C., Manza J. Social policy responsiveness in developed democracies // American Sociological Review. 2006 b. Vol. 71, N 3. P. 474-494. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F000312240607100306.

12. Carnes N., Lupu N. Do voters dislike working-class candidates? Voter biases and the descriptive underrepresentation of the working class // American Political Science Review. 2016. Vol. 110, N 4. P. 832-844. 10.1017/ S0003055416000551. DOI: 10.1017/S0003055416000551

13. Chong D., Druckman J.N. Framing public opinion in competitive democracies // American Political Science Review. 2007 a. Vol. 101, N 4. P. 637-655. DOI: 10.1017/S0003055407070554

14. Chong D., Druckman J.N. Framing theory // Annual review of political science. 2007 b. Vol. 10. P. 103-126. 10.1146/annurev.polisci. 10.072805.103054. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.103054

15. Cook L.J. Postcommunist welfare states: Reform politics in Russia and Eastern Europe. New York: Cornell university press, 2011. 268 p.

16. Diaz-Cayeros A., Estévez F., Magaloni B. The political logic of poverty relief: Electoral strategies and social policy in Mexico. Cambridge: Cambridge university press, 2016. 258 p. EDN: YDYYEH

17. Disillusionment and anti-Americanism in Russia: From pro-American to anti-American attitudes, 1993-2009 / B. Sokolov, R.F. Inglehart, E. Ponarin, I. Vartanova, W. Zimmerman // International Studies Quarterly. 2018. Vol. 62, N 3. P. 534-547. DOI: 10.1093/isq/sqy013 EDN: WTTDIQ

18. Druckman J.N. Political preference formation: Competition, deliberation, and the (ir) relevance of framing effects // American political science review. 2004. P. 671-686. DOI: 10.1017/S0003055404041413 EDN: HKXCWP

19. Enikolopov R., Petrova M., Zhuravskaya E. Media and political persuasion: Evidence from Russia // American Economic Review. 2011. Vol. 101, N 7. P. 3253-3285. DOI: 10.1257/aer.101.7.3253 EDN: PEOXIF

20. Fiorina M.P. Retrospective voting in American national elections. Yale: Yale university press, 1981. 288 p.

21. Franchino F., Zucchini F. Voting in a multi-dimensional space: A conjoint analysis employing valence and ideology attributes of candidates // Political science research and methods. 2015. Vol. 3, N 2. P. 221-241. DOI: 10.1017/psrm.2014.24

22. Frye T., Reuter O.J., Szakonyi D. Political machines at work voter mobilization and electoral subversion in the workplace // World politics. 2014. Vol. 66, N 2. P. 195-228. DOI: 10.1017/s004388711400001x EDN: SRBVST

23. Gallego A., Marx P. Multi-dimensional preferences for labour market reforms: a conjoint experiment // Journal of European public policy. 2017. Vol. 24, N 7. P. 1027-1047. DOI: 10.1080/13501763.2016.1170191

24. Gasiorowski M.J. Economic crisis and political regime change: An event history analysis // American political science review. 1995. Vol. 89, N 4. P. 882-897. DOI: 10.2307/2082515

25. Gehlbach S. Reflections on Putin and the Media // Post-Soviet affairs. 2010. Vol. 26, N 1. P. 77-87. DOI: 10.2747/1060-586X.26.1.77

26. Giger N. Do voters punish the government for welfare state retrenchment? A comparative study of electoral costs associated with social policy // Comparative European politics. 2010. Vol. 8, N 4. P. 415-443. DOI: 10.1057/cep.2009.4

27. Giger N., Nelson M. The electoral consequences of welfare state retrenchment: Blame avoidance or credit claiming in the era of permanent austerity? // European journal of political research. 2011. Vol. 50, N 1. P. 1-23. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6765.2010.01922.x

28. Giger N., Nelson M. The welfare state or the economy? Preferences, constituencies, and strategies for retrenchment // European sociological review. 2013. Vol. 29, N 5. P. 1083-1094. DOI: 10.1093/esr/jcs082

29. Golosov G.V. Voter Volatility in electoral authoritarian regimes: testing the "Tragic Brilliance" thesis // Comparative sociology. 2016. Vol. 15, N 5. P. 535-559. DOI: 10.1163/15691330-12341399 EDN: XFPEHF

30. Gourevitch P. Politics in hard times: Comparative responses to international economic crises. New York: Cornell university press, 1986. 272 p.

31. Green P.E., Rao V.R. Conjoint measurement-for quantifying judgmental data // Journal of marketing research. 1971. Vol. 8, N 3. P. 355-363. DOI: 10.2307/3149575

32. Guriev S., Treisman D. A theory of informational autocracy // Journal of public economics. 2020. Vol. 186. P. 104-158. 10.1016/ j.jpubeco.2020.104158. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104158 EDN: ZGYYCF

33. Guriev S., Treisman D. Informational autocrats // Journal of economic perspectives. 2019. Vol. 33, N 4. P. 100-127. DOI: 10.1257/jep.33.4.100 EDN: MXMGFV

34. Haggard S., Kaufman R. Development, democracy, and welfare states: Latin America, East Asia, and Eastern Europe. Princeton: Princeton university press, 2008. 472 p. DOI: 10.1086/651961

35. Hainmueller J., Hopkins D.J. The hidden American immigration consensus: A conjoint analysis of attitudes toward immigrants // American journal of political science. 2015. Vol. 59, N 3. P. 529-548. DOI: 10.1111/ajps.12138

36. Hainmueller J., Hopkins D.J., Yamamoto T. Causal inference in conjoint analysis: Understanding multidimensional choices via stated preference experiments // Political analysis. 2014. Vol. 22, N 1. P. 1-30. DOI: 10.1093/pan/mpt024

37. Häusermann S., Kurer T., Traber D. The politics of trade-offs: studying the dynamics of welfare state reform with conjoint experiments // Comparative political studies. 2019. Vol. 52, N 7. P. 1059-1095. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0010414018797943.

38. Healy A., Malhotra N. Retrospective voting reconsidered // Annual review of political science. 2013. Vol. 16. P. 285-306. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-polisci-032211-212920

39. Hellman J.S. Winners take all: the politics of partial reform in postcommunist transitions // World politics. 1998. Vol. 50, N 2. P. 203-234. DOI: 10.1017/s0043887100008091 EDN: GISRQX

40. Hobolt S.B., Tilley J. Blaming Europe?: Responsibility without accountability in the European union. Oxford: Oxford university press, 2014. 208 p. :oso/9780199665686.001.0001. DOI: 10.1093/acprof

41. Horiuchi Y., Smith D.M., Yamamoto T. Measuring voters' multidimensional policy preferences with conjoint analysis: Application to Japan's 2014 election // Political analysis. 2017. Vol. 26, N 2. P. 190-209. DOI: 10.1017/pan.2018.2

42. Is Putin's popularity real? / T. Frye, S. Gehlbach, K.L. Marquardt, O.J. Reuter // Post-Soviet affairs. 2017. Vol. 33, N 1. P. 1-15. DOI: 10.1080/1060586X.2016.1144334 EDN: YULPJP

43. Jensen C. Labour market-versus life course-related social policies: understanding cross-programme differences // Journal of European public policy. 2012. Vol. 19, N 2. P. 275-291. DOI: 10.1080/13501763.2011.599991

44. Key V.O. The responsible electorate. Cambridge, MA: Harvard university press, 1966. 150 p.

45. Kitschelt H. Partisan competition and welfare state retrenchment: When do politicians choose unpopular policies // The new politics of the welfare state / P. Pierson (ed). Oxford: Oxford scholarship online, 2001. P. 265-302. DOI: 10.1093/0198297564.003.0010

46. Klein J.G. Negativity effects in impression formation: A test in the political arena // Personality and social psychology bulletin. 1991. Vol. 17, N 4. P. 412-418. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0146167291174009. EDN: JPAJHJ

47. König P.D., Wenzelburger G. Toward a theory of political strategy in policy analysis // Politics & Policy. 2014. Vol. 42, N 3. P. 400-430. DOI: 10.1111/polp.12076

48. Lau R.R. Two explanations for negativity effects in political behavior // American journal of political science. 1985. Vol. 29, N 1. P. 119-138. DOI: 10.2307/2111215

49. Levitsky S., Way L.A. Competitive authoritarianism: Hybrid regimes after the Cold War. Cambridge: Cambridge university press, 2010. 536 p. EDN: USKLUP

50. Lewis-Beck M.S., Stegmaier M. Economic determinants of electoral outcomes // Annual review of political science. 2000. Vol. 3, N 1. P. 183-219. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.3.1.183 EDN: LMDIJV

51. Linz J., Stepan A. The breakdown of democratic regimes. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins university press, 1978. 144 p.

52. Logvinenko I. Authoritarian Welfare State, Regime Stability, and the 2018 Pension Reform in Russia // Communist and Post-Communist studies. 2020. Vol. 53, N 1. P. 100-116. DOI: 10.1525/cpcs.2020.53.1.100 EDN: PRAVRO

53. Maestas C.D., Rugeley C.R. Assessing the "Experience bonus" through examining strategic entry, candidate quality, and campaign receipts in US house elections // American journal of political science. 2008. Vol. 52, N 3. P. 520-535. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2008.00327.x

54. Magaloni B. Voting for autocracy: Hegemonic party survival and its demise in Mexico. Cambridge: Cambridge university press, 2006. 316 p. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511510274

55. Mares I., Carnes M.E. Social policy in developing countries // Annual Review of Political Science. 2009. Vol. 12. P. 93-113. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.12.071207.093504

56. Marx P., Schumacher G. The effect of economic change and elite framing on support for welfare state retrenchment: A survey experiment // Journal of European social policy. 2016. Vol. 26, N 1. P. 20-31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0958928715621711.

57. Mueller J.E. Presidential popularity from Truman to Johnson // The American political science review. 1970. Vol. 64, N 1. P. 18-34. DOI: 10.2307/1955610

58. Nadeau R., Lewis-Beck M.S. National economic voting in US presidential elections // Journal of politics. 2001. Vol. 63, N 1. P. 159-181. DOI: 10.1111/0022-3816.00063 EDN: EQBZDD

59. Norpoth H. Divided government and economic voting // The Journal of politics. 2001. Vol. 63, N 2. P. 414-435. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/. DOI: 10.1111/0022-3816.00073 EDN: EQCDTN

60. Pape R.A. Why economic sanctions do not work // International security. 1997. Vol. 22, N 2. P. 90-136. DOI: 10.2307/2539368 EDN: HIETOH

61. Pepinsky T.B. Economic crises and the breakdown of authoritarian regimes: Indonesia and Malaysia in comparative perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge university press, 2009. 346 p.

62. Pepinsky T.B. The global economic crisis and the politics of non-transitions // Government and opposition. 2012. Vol. 47, N 2. P. 135-161. DOI: 10.1111/j.1477-7053.2011.01361.x

63. Petrov N., Lipman M., Hale H.E. Three dilemmas of hybrid regime governance: Russia from Putin to Putin // Post-Soviet affairs. 2014. Vol. 30, N 1. P. 1-26. DOI: 10.1080/1060586X.2013.825140 EDN: SKLENX

64. Pierson P. Dismantling the welfare state? Reagan, Thatcher and the politics of retrenchment. Cambridge: Cambridge university press, 1994. 224 p. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511805288

65. Pierson P. The new politics of the welfare state // World politics. 1996. Vol. 48, N 2. P. 143-179. DOI: 10.1353/wp.1996.0004 EDN: HKTCJR

66. Pop-Eleches G., Tucker J.A. Communism's shadow: Historical legacies and contemporary political attitudes. Princeton: Princeton university press, 2017. 344 p.

67. Robertson G.B. The politics of protest in hybrid regimes: Managing dissent in post-communist Russia. N.Y.: Cambridge university press, 2011. 304 p.

68. Rose R., Munro N., Mishler W. Resigned acceptance of an incomplete democracy: Russia's political equilibrium // Post-Soviet affairs. 2004. Vol. 20, N 3. P. 195-218. DOI: 10.2747/1060-586X.20.3.195 EDN: MESWVR

69. Rosenfeld B. The popularity costs of economic crisis under electoral authoritarianism: evidence from Russia // American journal of political science. 2018. Vol. 62, N 2. P. 382-397. DOI: 10.1111/ajps.12338 EDN: VHFTIA

70. Rozenas A., Stukal D. How autocrats manipulate economic news: Evidence from Russia's state-controlled television // The Journal of politics. 2019. Vol. 81, N 3. P. 982-996. DOI: 10.1086/703208 EDN: EOBPWK

71. Rozin P., Royzman E.B. Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion // Personality and social psychology review. 2001. Vol. 5, N 4. P. 296-320. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207%2FS15327957PSPR0504_2. EDN: JPBOHX

72. Salmina A. Social attitudes towards welfare policies in Russia and other European countries // International Social Work. 2014. Vol. 57, N 5. P. 459-469. DOI: 10.1177/0020872814536414 EDN: UEXUYN

73. Sanovich S., Stukal D., Tucker J.A. Turning the virtual tables: Government strategies for addressing online opposition with an application to Russia // Comparative politics. 2018. Vol. 50, N 3. P. 435-482. 10.5129/ 001041518822704890. DOI: 10.5129/001041518822704890

74. Savin N., Kashirskikh O., Mavletova A. Fragility of strong media effects in authoritarian environment (Evidence from Russia) // European journal of communication. 2018. Vol. 33, N 5. P. 471-488. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0267323118775305. EDN: OMIYRN

75. Schedler A. The logic of electoral authoritarianism // Electoral authoritarianism: The dynamics of unfree competition. 2006. Vol. 1, N 6. P. 1-23. EDN: GXFXRF

76. Scheufele D.A., Iyengar S. The state of framing research: A call for new directions. // The Oxford handbook of political communication theories / K. Kenski, K.H. Jamieson (eds). Oxford: Oxford university press, 2017. P. 618-632. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199793471.013.47

77. Sirotkina E., Zavadskaya M. When the party's over: political blame attribution under an electoral authoritarian regime // Post-Soviet affairs. 2020. Vol. 36, N 1. P. 37-60. DOI: 10.1080/1060586X.2019.1639386 EDN: SFKLRO

78. Slothuus R., De Vreese C.H. Political parties, motivated reasoning, and issue framing effects // The Journal of politics. 2010. Vol. 72, N 3. P. 630-645. DOI: 10.1017/S002238161000006X

79. Sobolev A. How pro-government "trolls" influence online conversations in Russia. Los Angeles: University of California Los Angeles, 2018. 27 p.

80. Social capital and preferences for redistribution to target groups / E. Borisova, A. Govorun, D. Ivanov, I. Levina // European Journal of Political Economy. 2018. Vol. 54. P. 56-67. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2018.05.006 EDN: ZQOQPG

81. Soroka S., McAdams S. News, politics, and negativity // Political communication. 2015. Vol. 32, N 1. P. 1-22. DOI: 10.1080/10584609.2014.881942

82. Starke P. The politics of welfare state retrenchment: A literature review // Social policy & administration. 2006. Vol. 40, N 1. P. 104-120. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9515.2006.00479.x

83. The logic of political survival / B. Bueno de Mesquita, A. Smith, R. Siverson, J.D. Morrow. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2003. 550 p. EDN: QOFIVP

84. Treisman D. Presidential popularity in a hybrid regime: Russia under Yeltsin and Putin // American journal of political science. 2011. Vol. 55, N 3. P. 590-609. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00500.x EDN: OLKEUZ

85. Treisman D. Putin's popularity since 2010: why did support for the Kremlin plunge, then stabilize? // Post-Soviet affairs. 2014. Vol. 30, N 5. P. 370-388. DOI: 10.1080/1060586X.2014.904541 EDN: XWYPHV

86. Trial by fire: a natural Disaster's impact on support for the authorities in rural Russia / E. Lazarev, A. Sobolev, I.V. Soboleva, B. Sokolov // World Politics. 2014. Vol. 66, N 4. P. 641-668. DOI: 10.1017/S0043887114000215 EDN: UFHLQF

87. Van Oorschot W., Gugushvili D. Retrenched, but still desired? Perceptions regarding the social legitimacy of the welfare state in Russia compared with EU Countries // Europe-Asia Studies. 2019. Vol. 71, N 3. P. 345-364. DOI: 10.1080/09668136.2019.1583316 EDN: WYLWLM

88. Weaver R.K. The politics of blame avoidance // Journal of public policy. 1986. Vol. 6, N 4. P. 371-398. DOI: 10.1017/S0143814X00004219

89. Welfare reform, protest and stability in the light of reforms of old-age pensions, housing and primary education / J. Holm-Hansen, M. Berg-Nordlie, A. Aasland, L. Cook // Russian politics. 2019. Vol. 4, N 3. P. 354-374. DOI: 10.1163/2451-8921-00403004 EDN: SCZCLY

90. Wenzelburger G., Hörisch F. Framing effects and comparative social policy reform: Comparing blame avoidance evidence from two experiments // Journal of comparative policy analysis: research and practice. 2016. Vol. 18, N 2. P. 157-175. DOI: 10.1080/13876988.2015.1053743

91. Youth protests against education privatization reforms in Post-Soviet States / I. Silova, V. Brezheniuk, M. Kudasova, O. Mun, N. Artemev // European Education. 2014. Vol. 46, N 3. P. 75-99. DOI: 10.2753/EUE1056-4934460304