The article scrutinizes the current changes in the process of policy formulation and policy implementation. Analyzing classic and up-to-date literature on policy studies, the authors demonstrate that the new roles of stateand non-state actors and the new modes of their interaction serve as a background for policy change regardless of the political context it takes place in. The authors utilize the concepts of multi-level governance and network governance in order to identify the new functions actors take in a policy process and to outline the pathways for future research in the field.
Literature overview demonstrates a pervasive increase in co-dependence of all stakeholders, who became an integral part of public policy, starting from social agenda and ending up with global environmental challenges. Such phenomena as cogovernance, regulatory state, and private government become extreme examples of shifts in quality of multi-level governance systems. These changes are also relevant for non-democratic and non-capitalist market contexts, even though they are limited to specific policy spheres and might produce different outcomes. Inevitable shortcomings of multi-level governance are a tendency of private capture of public policy, legitimacy decline and blurring of accountability as well as escalation of the principal-agent problem. The crucial explanation of multi-level governance efficiency lies in the coherence of layering of responsibilities, fair distribution of costs and additional incentives for cooperation among various layers of governance.
The article is organized as follows. The first paragraph describes the role of the state and governmental actors under the conditions of multi-level governance. The second paragraph is devoted to the role of non-state actors (business, NGOs, international, and transnational organizations) in the process of policy formulation and policy change. Finally, the third paragraph focuses on the changes in actors’ behavior that take place at the stages of policy implementation and feedback. To conclude, the authors discuss how the development of multi-level governance influences state autonomy.

External shocks affect the quality of governance and the stability of political systems around the world. The concept of resilience, which until recently was actively used only in natural science research, has become a key focus for political scientists studying the impact of crises on political institutions in various national contexts. In studies of the causes of resilience to external shocks, a significant place is occupied by studies of multi-level governance, where multi-levelness is considered as a key factor determining the success or failure of a state's adaptation to new conditions.
Adaptation of multi-level political systems to external shocks has been profoundly examined using the example of the natural disasters effects and the COVID-19 pandemic, where the impact of these events on the decision-making process most fully corresponds to the concept of an “external shock” and requires the fastest possible responses. At the same time, the found explanations for the speed and quality of the response of multi-level systems to natural disasters or pandemics are not always suitable for explaining the adaptation of states to such external shocks as large-scale economic sanctions, since the latter do not imply such rapid and obvious negative consequences. In addition, the consequences of economic sanctions are not always interpreted by stakeholders as an “external shock”, but can often be framed as a routine policy. In this article, we attempt to generalize the existing theoretical explanations in the social sciences of the quality of adaptation of multi-level political systems to external shocks and assess their analytical capabilities for studying the adaptation of the Russian multi-level system to the consequences of economic sanctions in housing policy. The possibilities and limitations of using existing theories will be illustrated by the case of adaptation of the housing policy sphere in Russian regions to new economic conditions.

This article is a systematic analytical review of studies analyzing the patterns of policy innovation diffusion in multilevel political systems and the main mechanisms of policy diffusion between hierarchical jurisdictions. Particular attention is paid to the changing effects of policy innovation diffusion in the context of the transformation of the contemporary field of political science and the shift of researchers’ attention to multilevel governance systems involving non-traditional actors. The paper provides an overview of two main approaches to the theoretical conceptualization of the process of policy diffusion – policy diffusion and policy transfer. The first part of the study examines the evolution of these theoretical models and the main mechanisms of diffusion that correspond to them. The second part of the study identifies the key determinants of policy diffusion – structural, institutional and agency characteristics, and describes the main causal mechanisms of these determinants. Special attention is paid to the phenomenon of vertical diffusion of policy innovations. The final part of the article is devoted to the comparison of policy diffusion models in Western and non-Western political contexts on the example of a comparative analysis of the policy diffusion in multilevel political systems of China and the United States.

When cross-territorial heterogeneity, typical of modern states, acquire political significance, this gives rise to political-territorial conflicts, self-determination movements (SDM) and may be accompanied by the threat of secession. In the context of a threat of secession, the state can ignore the demands of the SDM or suppress it or / and carry out reforms-concessions. The study of the impact of state policy and some other factors on the threat of secession, carried out by logistic regression on the empirical data of 171 politically significant SDMs in 77 countries from 1991 to 2020, confirms theoretical expectations that the likelihood of a strong threat of secession is positively influenced by the resources that SDMs have for political mobilization: ethnic identity of the territory and lost statehood, favorable geographical location, access to power at the regional level, especially in autonomous regions. At the same time, state policy also has a significant effect. In general, the implementation of reforms- concessions reduces the likelihood of a strong threat of secession, but if such reforms are accompanied by suppression of the movement by the state, this has the opposite effect: odds ratio in favor to strong threat of secession increases several times.

Co-optation of self-determination movements can be considered as a mechanism of governance of political-territorial heterogeneity in contemporary polities. In the article, the author classifies formats of co-optation of self-determination movements by national authorities in European states in 1990–2024. The main research task is to collect empirically observed cases of institutional co-optation of self-determination movements and classify them by the criteria of degree and sustainability. The first part of the article presents the author’s conceptualization of co-optation of self-determination movements, comparative parameters and boundaries of classification. The second part of the article presents empirically observed cases of institutional co-optation of self- determination movements in European states in 1990–2024 and their classification considering the criteria of stability and duration of co-optation. The final part is devoted to a comparative description of co-optation classes and fixation on individual examples of co-optation as a mechanism for managing political-territorial heterogeneity. Three key clusters of institutional co-optations are identified: stable government co-optations of a high degree with different parties, stable government co-optations of a medium degree with one or more close ideological partners, co-optations of a minimal degree with different parties. It has been established that co-optation as a mechanism for governance of political-territorial heterogeneity most often observed in the format of stable and long-term government co-optations with various party and ideological partners. This is due to the needs to eliminate radical demands from self-determination movements and preserve the political-territorial integrity of the state. Assumptions are made regarding possible differences in the mechanism of co-optation of self-determination movements and the traditional format of co-optation of opposition parties.

The direct participation of subnational units in legislative activity at the national level is not a common practice in countries around the world, but even more rarely it is presented in the form of a constitutional right to initiate the procedure for adopting national (federal) laws, that is, to act like presidents, governments, deputies and factions of the national legislature. Empirical analysis based on data from the Comparative Constitutions Project, the Regional Authority Index, texts of constitution allowed us to establish that this right has been enshrined in the constitutions of 26 states over the past two centuries. Among them are both federations and unitary states in the constitutional sense. They are also diverse in other respects. However, most cases of the first appearance of the mechanism in a constitution have one common feature: the involvement of political forces identifying themselves as “left” in the creation of the corresponding constitutions. This does not seem accidental, and the study is devoted to an attempt to clarify the possible mechanism of this connection, based on the theory of institutional isomorphism. Of the three main mechanisms by which institutional isomorphic changes occur, the main focus is on normative isomorphism, although in some cases coercive is also apparently significant. However, normative isomorphism operates both in the logic of professionalization as in the original theory and in the ideological dimension. But, although ideological orientation of professional communities and other forces involved in the development of constitutions matters, it does not in itself predetermine the use of the right of legislative initiative in a country by regions and other subnational units.

The paper analyses the functioning of a multi-level governance in the European Union at the example of the development of a single liberalized energy market. The study covers three stages of reforms (the First, Second and Third energy packages). The concept of multiple flows, adapted to the specifics of the EU institutional system, and the concept of principal-agent are used as a methodological basis. The purpose of the study is to identify: 1) factors determining the degree and limits of the autonomy of the European Commission and its ability to influence policy formation; 2) strategies used by the Commission to achieve its goals; and 3) changes in the Commission strategy at different stages of energy market liberalization.
Given the scale of the resistance to the reforms and the high political importance of the issue, the Commission has consistently followed a consensual approach to develop new rules in order to ensure their legitimacy and not give Member States clear reasons to sabotage implementation. The Commission's strategy was based on a combination of two tracks: legislative reforms and the use of competition policy instruments. The Commission relied on stakeholders and actively used information asymmetry. During the initial stages of the reform, the Commission was extremely prudent. While discussing the Third Package, the Commission acted much more actively and tougher due to the increasing divergence of the interests of the Member States and the opportunity to manoeuvre between them. In the long term, the Commission has consistently worked to form allies “within” the Member States – national energy regulators, seeking to expand their powers and strengthen their independence from national governments.

Since 2020, the system of e-participation in Russia has been increasingly centralizing, and its role in addressing the tasks of multilevel governance is becoming more profound. Citizens’ feedback in the form of individual complaints and appeals can be used to monitor the situation in the regions and municipalities and to control local bureaucrats. Such “administrative” logic diverges from earlier interpretations of electronic democracy as a tool for developing public deliberation and civic participation capabilities. The article examines the key stages in the formation of this e-participation model in Russia. The analysis is based on official documents and interviews with public officials, interpreted through the lens of the Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) and the Historical New Institutionalism. The main argument of the article is that the major design features of e-participation, as an information, analytical and administrative tool were established at the initial stage of its development. The path established during the period of the policy window from 2009 to 2012 largely determined subsequent organizational and technological solutions, including the predominance of individualized participation forms (complaints, voting) and the idea of a centralized e-participation portal. When the policy window closed, due to the changes in the political environment, the framing of e-participation in the context of e-democracy, which had prevailed earlier, steadily faded away, while the framing focused on problem solving and governance efficiency became predominant. This allowed the institution not only to survive but also to increase its relevance to the authorities.

Tourism research in Russia is developed within economics and geography, but not political science. At the same time the state is focusing on tourism and its political reforms due to the challenges connected to COVID-19 pandemics and geopolitical turbulency. Both make tourism policy important for political analysis especially within the framework of multilevel governance which enables the author to single out state and non-state actors, their functions and communication channels. The methods of the empirical research included the analysis of legislation, descriptive statistics, and a series of expert interviews with the representatives of tourism business, authorities and expert community. The National project “Tourism and hospitality” (2025–2030) and “The Strategy of tourism development in Russia to 2035” both consider tourism not only in the economic realm, but also as a means of strengthening national identity. The evidence of current statistics showing the rise in the tourism flow and the numbers of hotels makes the target criteria of these strategic documents favorably achievable. The research proves the strengthening role of the state as a political actor in tourism policy. The municipal authorities responsible for infrastructure development are only indirectly involved into tourism policy, the same as NGOs. Destination marketing as their typical function in foreign countries is transferred to Tourist information centers closely affiliated with the state in Russia. The expert community influences tourism development by means of policy formulation and evaluation. The residents may be regarded as the recipients of benefits, but not active subjects of tourism policy. Thus, the interaction of state and non-state actors in the sphere of tourism policy should be described by means of the model of the authorities’ domination which is in this case considered legitimate by tourism business.

By the early 2000s, political scientists studying the European Union had turned their attention to the system of interaction between supranational, national and regional actors, both horizontally and vertically. As a result of describing this system, the theory of multi-level governance emerged. The key idea of this concept is the distribution of powers between different entities, which often do not coincide with traditional state institutions. Conflicts related to the division of powers and other issues, according to the the theory, should have been resolved through ongoing negotiations between actors at different levels. However, we can observe cases where supranational actors interfere in the areas of competence of national governments. Such cases are difficult to interpret as a negotiation process, since they are accompanied by coercive intervention aimed at strengthening control over decision-making. Since such situations differ from the classical negotiation process within the framework of the theory of multi-level governance, it is important to understand how they occur. To this end, we will turn to the main theories explaining the functioning of the European Union: intergovernmentalism, supranationalism and multi-level governance, as well as lower- level theories describing the mechanisms of interaction between different actors of the European Union. Based on the results of our analysis, we can note that no theory can provide a full, exhaustive answer to our question. However, each of them allows us to understand part of this answer: intergovernmentalism focuses on the position of national governments, supranationalism – on the actions of supranational institutions, and the theory of multi-level governance – on the institutional structure of interaction between different levels of government. At the same time, more narrowly specialized theories, such as the “integration model” of Henschel and Jachtenfuchs, as well as the concept of differentiated integration, allow a more detailed analysis of internal political processes within the European Union.

One of the directions of transformation of political systems in European countries in the late 20th – early 21st centuries was a significant strengthening of regionalist parties and reforms aimed at decentralisation. Empirical evidence shows that regionalist parties show different dynamics after such reforms. Of particular interest are the regionalist movements in Belgium, where a series of federalization reforms were implemented between 1970 and 2011, but despite the institutional changes being roughly the same across regions, there are fundamentally different trajectories in the development of regionalist movements. This paper attempts to apply P.J. Dimaggio and W. Powell's concept of institutional isomorphism to explain these differences. The study is exploratory in nature, but nevertheless the author concludes that this concept has heuristic potential. Flemish regionalism, which exhibits features of normative isomorphism, shows even after the reforms a steady dynamism, proposing new forms of autonomy or full independence from Belgium. Walloon regionalism, which was formed mainly in the logic of coercive isomorphism, as a reaction to the Flemish threat, after the federal reforms reoriented itself to socio-economic problems, in fact refusing to further expand autonomy. After achieving the basic goals of autonomy, Walloon regionalism, deprived of strong internal motivation, gradually lost its identity. The regionalist movement of the German-speaking community in Belgium can be interpreted more as an imitative isomorphism; it deliberately copied the institutional models of Flanders and Wallonia, seeking similar powers.

In the article, based on the analysis of the existing works on the status of the constituent units of the state and related studies of Russian federalism, as well as the presented list of status indicators, which include two main groups of characteristics: formal norms and resources (economic, political, cultural), an attempt is made to quantitatively measure the political status of the subjects of the Russian Federation and analyze its dynamics for the period from 1998 to 2021. Despite the widespread thesis that Russian republics had a special position exclusively in the 1990s–2000s and that this position was lost in the process of centralization policy in the 2000s–2010s, the analysis shows that the majority of the Russian subjects retained their political status at the same level, and in some cases increased it, which, however, was possible due to the transformation of the very concept of political status in the period under consideration, in which the loss of formal indicators due to centralization processes is compensated by the growth of resource indicators of status – mainly economic and cultural.

     In 2022, the Donetsk and Luhansk people's republics, as well as the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions, became part of the Russian Federation, initiating large-scale processes of their political, administrative, and economic integration. One of the key tasks is the incorporation of the regional political elites of these territories into Russia's multi-level governance system. In this context, the article analyzes the network configuration of the regional political elite of the new federal subjects of the Russian Federation in terms of their integration into the federal system of governance.
     Using the cases of the Donetsk People's Republic and the Kherson region, the study examines the degree of integration of regional elites into federal patronal networks. The article highlights the role of the “curatorship” (‘shefstvo’) institution, which functions as a specific mechanism for integrating new regions into Russia's multi-level system of governance.
     Based on an analysis of the political networks of the governors, the article explores the features of network-based political governance in the regions. The results of network modeling reveal significant differences both within the intra-regional networks of the head of the DPR and the governor of the Kherson region, and in their connections with federal elites and other regions. These findings suggest divergent priorities in the integration of new regions: while the Kherson region demonstrates a focus on political integration, the DPR emphasizes economic recovery and infrastructure development.