Catálogo de publicaciones - revistas

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>In the literature on policy advice and analytical communities in democratic settings, think tanks are often assumed to be carriers of new ideas that serve as an informed and independent voice in policy debates. However, how much intellectual independence do think tanks have in authoritarian environments? This article tackles this question in a case study of Russian think tanks' discursive responses to two protracted crises: the COVID‐19 pandemic and climate change. The study employs a combination of deductive and inductive techniques to identify the discursive strategies used by think tank experts in their publications covering the crises. The findings suggest that there are differences in how think tanks communicate crises, which can be attributed to their institutional structures and position vis‐à‐vis the state. In some cases, the think tanks resort to polarization and discreditation of Western governments' crisis response, while openly endorsing the Russian state. In other cases, they engage in rationalization and more neutral analyses of the pandemic and climate change. However, regardless of these differences, they rarely concentrate on domestic challenges. Instead, they geopoliticize the crises, overemphasizing problematic developments elsewhere in the world, thus shifting attention in the public discourse away from domestic emergencies.</jats:p>

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>In this article, we examine the ways in which the futures of climate change and the climate change policy process are constructed as narratives—both explicitly and implicitly—in two different yet interconnected contexts that shape public climate discourse and debate: foresight‐based political decision‐making and journalism. The featured case is the National Energy and Climate Strategy of Finland for 2030. We employ and expand the Narrative Policy Framework to better understand the co‐existent, implicit narratives of the future in the contexts of policy and media. We construct two co‐existing yet contradictory underlying narratives of the future of climate change and climate policy. Our approach reveals that the prevailing master narrative of a desirable future is challenged by a co‐existing counter narrative where policies in the energy and climate strategy prioritize shorter‐term policy interests over climate change. Building on these findings, we argue that, in climate policy communication, communicators convey futures through narratives—both explicitly, as descriptions of what is perceived, hoped, and anticipated to happen, and implicitly, as the sum of the parts included and excluded.</jats:p>

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>Do authoritarian regimes adopt similar or equal policies? Despite the large literature on policy convergence in democracies, we know little about whether and to what extent authoritarian regimes follow analogous paths. This article argues that similar policy legacy, political and institutional context, and international influences lead to policy convergence among nondemocratic regimes. Analyzing welfare state trajectories in Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, and Tajikistan, the empirical analysis finds that the welfare state in the three post‐Soviet countries has converged at the level of social spending and the source of welfare financing, while divergence persists in disaggregated levels of social spending; configuration of key welfare programs, particularly in old‐age pensions and unemployment; and the extent of welfare state reforms. Overall, the findings provide important insights into the determinants of policy convergence in nondemocratic regimes and yield critical implications for future research on the welfare state's trajectory in former Soviet countries.</jats:p>