LIST OF PANELS

Focusing on political actors, contemporary political research develops various strategies of assessment of power, influence and policy impact, but the most of commonly recognized approaches do not consider discursive aspect of power and influence. The concept of “soft power” relevant for neoteric social practices emphasizes the role of language mechanisms and discursive practices in policy making process. This panel aims to explore both empirical and theoretical dimensions of public policy analysis through language and discourse. We invite the paper presenters, who answer the following questions: What discursive practices related to public policy issues can be figured out and described? What are the discursive foundations for political actorness? How to evaluate the political influence and policy impact of political actors through discourse? How to specify discursive practices which establish the discursive power? What is the link between the concept of discursive power and related concepts of soft power, policy impact, political changes, and policy changes; how the analysis of discursive practices helps investigate the public policy? We welcome papers giving theoretical insights into the above-listed issues, or empirical evidence of the discursive activity of political actors, or both.

In recent policy research more attention is paid to public policy actors than to structures and institutions. The conviction that publics and public policy actors are more important because they form political structures and institutions become a consensus research program both in political science and policy analysis. Political scholars and policy analysts developed research theories, methodologies and collected empirical data to evaluate the power, influence and policy impact of different political actors (starting from the state and politicians, ending with protest movements). To assess power, influence and policy impact of political actor, or ‘actorness’ (Belyaeva, 2011), scholars and analysts used classical theories of ‘elitists’ (Mills, Domhoff, Dye) and ‘pluralists’ (Bentley, Truman, Dahl), and empirical models – ‘positional’ (Mills, Freeman, Miller), ‘reputational’ (Hunter, Bonjean, Trounstine and Christensen), and ‘decisional’ (Dahl, Wildavski, Banfield). However, all these approaches omit the crucial aspect of power and influence of political actors in contemporary states and polities. It is influence through discourse, or more precisely, trough exercising discursive practices. Discursive practices have become the central phenomenon for scholars and analysts interested in public policy, since the social practices of public policy actors became “softer”. Contemporary political actors prefer different mechanisms of “soft power” to the traditional forms of influence on political and policy changes, like power, violence, enforcement, and coercion. The various social practices of using the language, or discursive practices, have come to be the key element of “soft power” for policy actors. A new distinctive research approach (Fischer & Forester) that emphasizes the role of language, discourse, argumentation and deliberation in policy analysis and planning begins with a presumption that public policy is constructed through language and is a product of argumentation. Linguistic criticism (Fowler) reveals strong correlation between political influence and the discursive activity of an actor. The quality of particular discursive practice can be considered as a possible criterion to assess the political status of its policy actors. Discursive activity clearly shows the ability of an actor either to set the agenda (described as representing of selected facts in specific mode) or to exercise the relevant policy reasoning, being a way political decisions are presented and articulated to general public or a way to convince the general public of necessity and appropriateness of certain political decisions. References: Belyaeva, N. (2011) Analysts: “Consultants” or “Independent Policy Actors” // Politicka Misao. Vol. 48. No. 5. P. 125-140. Fischer, F., Gottweis, H., ed. (2012) The Argumentative Turn Revisited: Public Policy as Communicative Practice. Duke University Press. 400 p. Ledyaev, V. (2012) Sociology of Power. HSE.