CC BY
14
DOI 10.26105/SSPU.2020.69.6.001 УДК 94(47)"1960/1990":94(73)"1960/1990 ББК 63.3(2)63-458+ 63.3(7Сое)6-458
Л.В. КОЩЕЕВА
ЭКОЛОГИЧЕСКИЙ АКТИВИЗМ И УПРАВЛЕНИЕ В СОЕДИНЕННЫХ ШТАТАХ И СОВЕТСКОЙ РОССИИ В 1960-1990 ГОДАХ
L.V. KOCHTCHEEVA
ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVISM AND GOVERNANCE IN THE UNITED STATES AND SOVIET RUSSIA IN THE 1960-1990S
В статье проводится сравнительный исторический анализ факторов, способствовавших формированию, мобилизации и росту экологического активизма в США и в РСФСР в 1960-1990 годах. В частности, в ней анализируются аналитические исторические условия и факторы, приведшие к возникновению природоохранной политики на федеральном уровне. И США, и СССР вынуждены были реагировать на возникшие экологические проблемы путем прямого государственного регулирования, но делали это по-разному. В США отсутствие должной государственной политики побудило общественность пойти по пути протеста и давления, чтобы заставить правительство принять экологическое законодательство, учитывавшее активное участие граждан в принятии решений. В РСФСР экологическая политика формулировалась государством, где федеральное природоохранное законодательство возникло и оформилось под влиянием ведомственных и региональных интересов, которые стали оказывать заметное влияние на экологическую политику с 1960-х гг. В отличие от США, где природоохранное законодательство было результатом учета интересов различных общественных групп, в СССР законы и кодексы, посвященные охране природы, являлись официальным ответом на существующие экологические проблемы. Участие советских общественных, партийных, и особенно научных, организаций сводилось к попыткам убедить государство принять необходимые законы с целью поставить под контроль предприятия, загрязняющих окружающую среду.
This article performs a comparative historical analysis of the factors that contributed to the formation, mobilization, and growth of environmental activism in the United States and Soviet Russia in the 1960-1990s. In particular, it examines the analytic historical background and the factors that have led to the appearance of environmental policy at the federal level. In the United States the lack of a proper government policy prompted the public to take the path of protest and pressure to force the government to adopt environmental legislation that took into account the active participation of citizens in decision-making. In the RSFSR, environmental policy was formulated by the state, where the federal environmental legislation emerged and developed under the influence of departmental and regional interests, which have had a significant impact on environmental policy since the 1960s. Unlike the United States, where environmental legislation was the result of taking into account the interests of various social groups, in the USSR laws and codes dedicated to nature conservation were the official response to existing environmental problems. The participation of Soviet public, party, and especially scientific organizations was only attempts to persuade the state to adopt the necessary laws to bring polluting enterprises to compliance.
КЛЮЧЕВЫЕ СЛОВА: экологический активизм, экологическая политика, общественные группы, гражданское общество, государство, управление
KEYWORDS: environmental activism, ecological policy, public groups, civil society, government, governance
Environmental problems pose a tremendous threat to the wellbeing of people all over the world. As a result, environment has entered politics and has become an important issue in political discourse and decisions. Over the past several decades, in many countries, governments, private institutions, and societal organizations have been shaping the patterns of environmental policy process. Over the same time, scholars have become very interested in the questions of how societal environmental interests may impact governmental environmental policy process in different countries. The issue of "impact" can be addressed in different ways. Most scholars investigated the factors that lead to formation, mobilization, and growth of environmental activism, paying attention on the tactics and strategy of environmental organizations that would produce policy changes [4, 6, 24, 29]. Other scholars explored whether the demands of environmental groups are taken into consideration by the government during the formulation and implementation stages of the policy process [5, 7, 17, 26, 27, 28]. Still other scholars paid much greater attention to the issue on how societal environmental organizations may help the government become attentive and adapt to challenges brought by economic development [11, 15, 19, 20], as well as provide expert advice to the government, thus increasing governmental capacity in environmental policy process and improving the mechanisms of governance [12].
Under what conditions do societal environmental interests may increase governance capacity in environmental policy? If governmental capacity is understood as the ability of the government to formulate and implement official goals, then governance capacity is a function of overall configurations in policy process stemming from the economy and the society, as well as the government. Environmental policy within the governance paradigm reflects to a large degree the quality of governmental performance, including the ability to adopt new societal objectives and means to approach them. By opening up an opportunity to different stakeholders, including the environmental interests, to be more active participants in policy, the government also increases the prospects that non-governmental actors will bring effective, innovative, and successful approaches to solving environmental problems [13].
In order to understand how societal environmental interests can influence governance capacity we need to address the dynamics of civil society and the problem of the government-society relations, because societal environmental interests are a part of the overall civil organization of society. At the same time, we need to examine how societal environmental interests came to exist, particularly what major explanations have been developed for social responses to the environmental changes. This article produces a comparison of environmental process in the United States and Russia, with a focus on the role of societal groups on environmental governance, during the formative years for the environmental movement of the 1960s to 1990s.
The United States and Russia are selected first of all because both countries are large federal states that have been experiencing a very heavy impact of economic activity on the environment, both countries have responded to the environmental problems with a development of direct governmental regulation, and in both countries societal response to environmental problems and environmental regulation have emerged. However, these countries differ on who started doing what and when in terms of environmental protection.
Both countries have been employing particular combinations of market and government involvement in the production of policies. In the United States, market failures resulting in environmental problems led to government intervention in environmental policy-making, where instances of ineffective regulation led to public outcry and widespread mobilization of societal environmental interests. In Russia, governmental and economic failures of the Soviet regime resulted not only in the democratization and liberalization but also in the overall restructuring of government-society relations, where societal environmental interests played an important role. This article addresses the rich literatures on government-society relations to analyze the factors that explain the rise societal environmental activism and explore how societal interests affect governance capacity in environmental policy.
OVERVIEW OF THE RESEARCH PROBLEM
There is no doubt that industrial development and production have become a major cause of environmental change. While mass production and consumption have been always necessarily dependent on, and had impacts on the natural environment, this setting of economy and society in nature was not commonly seen as problematic before the middle of the twentieth century. Governments in many countries became actively involved in environmental regulation, but not always successfully. This was because the government involvement did not abolish the crisis tendencies, but transformed them and internalized them within the state, which in turn emerged as crisis of the state itself and its approach to crisis management [10]. The economic contradictions displaced into the structures of the government itself appear usually as a rationality, legitimation, or fiscal crises of the state. Recognition, first of the limits to the economy's capacity and government capacities to deal with environmental change led in turn to a search for new modes of regulatory activity and new ways of dealing with environmental protection. Social mobilization for environmental cause emerged in many countries. Despite the differences in immediate environmental concerns, a number of environmental groups challenged the regulatory model and the logic of economic activity. It is certainly true that strands of environmental advocacy and thinking had emerged much earlier than the mid of the twentieth century. However, the new and increased ecological problems became more visible and pronounced in the latter part of the 1960s.
Environmental issues pose complications in finding both appropriate conceptualizations of the issues to be resolved and suitable methods of addressing the problems embedded in them. Unlike other problems facing society, where 'doing more of the same but doing it better' is sufficient, with environmental problems, society encounters bigger tasks. This involves not only governmental intervention and education, but a fundamental change in a way environmental policy is perceived and conducted. This directs attention to the agents and structures of change, which can show alternative ways of addressing environmental problems [20].
There are two basic ways to understand improvement in environmental policy-making. On the one hand, there is a need to explore governmental formulation and implementation process in order to discover and decide which features should be included in a statute, and which levers need to be pulled to make a policy work. On the other hand, much of what occurs in policy formulation and implementation is influenced by non-governmental actors [16, 22]. Societal organizations and a general socio-economic and political structure significantly affect the governmental policy process. The focus of the policy process shifts to the issues of environmental governance. Governance refers to the emergence and recognition of norms, principles, rules, and procedures that both provide standards of acceptable public behavior, and that are followed to generate behavioral regularities [18]. Thus defined, environmental governance, does not have to be performed only by governments, but also by private entities, societal organizations, and associations of NGOs.
Environmental governance indicates a broad notion encompassing the organizational structures and the activities of all levels of government, central, regional or local. Environmental governance comes to incorporate institutions and organizations of civil society in their capacity as participants in shaping and influencing public policy that affects their lives. Environmental governance also signifies efforts by the government to share its governing capacity through the creation of opportunities, incentives and voluntary schemes for the regulated community to reduce negative environmental impacts.
The major assumption behind environmental governance is that societal environmental interests are influencing policy process through the development of their own capacities and by affecting the capacity of the government in policy process. Then again, the expectation is that precisely how societal environmental interests actually able to this, is affected by the structures of their respective economic and political systems.
DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIETAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE IN THE UNITED STATES
AND SOVIET RUSSIA IN THE 1960-1990S
In the historical context, exploring patterns of associational life and environmental activism in the United States and Soviet Russia, differences in characteristics and development trajectories become readily apparent [5, 6]. The nature of the political opportunity structure in a state, structure of economy, and the value system determine to a large degree the profile and impact of political mobilization, and its subsequent integration within the political system — how actors shape the nature of the political opportunities they encounter [17, 24]. These factors have important implications for understanding the activities and effect of environmental interests on governance capacity.
UNITED STATES
The United States has long been seen as a setting that is congenial for multiple societal associations, where at the basis of the Western type of association lie the interests of the individual. Alexis de Tocqueville observed in 19th century that Americans seemed to be a nation of joiners of associations. However, American political culture and the constitutional arrangements of the government have been especially conducive to the emergence of multiple societal interests. From the sharp differences between commercial and landed interests, to the immigration consequences with a wide variety of racial, ethnic, religious, and cultural mix, the United States became a place emphasizing group assimilation. Federalism and separation of powers principles in the Constitution have greatly influenced the existence of large numbers of interest groups. The decentralized political power provided multiple access points for groups. Moreover, weakness of American political parties, in comparison to many other nations, offered great potential for alternative organizations, such as interest groups to influence policy [4, 6].
A pluralist competition of ideas and values in the American society has also been pursued by many interest groups concerned with environmental policy [15]. Several significant developments denote the age of environmental groups' politics. Starting in the 1930s and expanding in 1960s, the federal government has become increasingly active and important to group formation, mainly through provision of resources to groups. One of the aims was to use government as an agent in balancing the relationship between contending forces in society, particularly addressing the issues of inequality and promoting distributional justice, as well as compensating for market failures. Proliferation of governmental activity led to the increase in the number of active groups, where most societal groups emerged after the WWII, as a result of rapid technological change, intensified industrial expansion, and population shifts, with group formation accelerating in the 1960s [4]. The postwar period also signified the emergence of a culture of protest, mainly inspired by the black freedom struggle, anti-war, and other social movements, as well as a rising belief that the society could produce massive social change.
Governmental policy failures also impelled societal activism, especially in environmental regulation. By the 1960s, environmental protest and awareness began to arise on college campuses, in local communities and nation's capital. Environmental interests started to direct their efforts toward the national government, as air and water pollution increased and spread across boundaries. Environmentalists assembled to enact policy changes, uniting with labor unions, public health professionals, and the consumer movement. During the first Earth Day on April 22 of 1970, twenty million Americans demonstrated in different U.S. cities raising awareness about environmental problems, which ultimately led to the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the same year. Pessimism and concern stemming from government's seeming inability to deliver policies, growing skills within society, and new standard of performance legitimacy demonstrated that governmental capacity was under scrutiny, as societal forces took in their hands environmental problems that seemed most threatening to them. Environmental interests also aimed to democratize environmental decision-making, yielding greater public participation and transparency. The 1969 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), required citizen involvement, public hearings, and published reports, in major federal infrastructure projects with significant environmental impact [22].
A second significant development was the change in the structure and tactics of interest of groups. Environmental interests started to exhibit an enduring influence on politics, and undergone a wide-ranging institutionalization in terms of both the professionalization of their activities and the regularization of their access to policy-makers. The environmental movement helped achieve major legislative goals, including the passage of the Clean Air Act (1970), the Clean Water Act (1972), the Endangered Species Act (1973), and others. Since 1980s, notwithstanding conservative retreat in the government the environmental movement increased. The membership expanded, the fundraising continued, and confrontational strategies gave way to more conventional forms of pressure. A gap between professional groups focusing on lobbying and heavily media-oriented, and public-oriented but rarely mobilized groups increased. The Superfund Law established a fund for cleaning up some of the worst environmental damage and produced the polluter pays principle. At the same time, environmental justice activists brought attention to class and racial inequalities and the unequal burden of pollution [22]. 2019). The work of U.S. environmentalists had also grown increasingly transnational, with Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and others collaborating in different countries.
Third major change occurred in 1990s when networks of groups rejecting professional activism have developed, which facilitated a division of labor between professional groups and grass-roots and gave a chance to local groups to play an autonomous role [3]. At the same time, the leading national environmental organizations had grown in numbers and capacity. Public opinion favored environmental protection, giving a broad base of support for environmental initiatives. Pro-environment groups were growing in number, sophistication, and resources, and environmental activists extended their campaigns globally, with many large U.S. environmental organizations developing important international programs even becoming involved in transnational collaborations between governments and NGOs. Yet, the rapidly globalizing economy and political constrains undermined further significant environmental reform. A change in the character and degree of environmental problems weakened the U.S. movement's ability to translate extensive popular support into noteworthy legislative advances on the issues that mattered most, including environmental justice concerns and climate change [22]. The global challenges, especially climate change would take center stage in the new century.
The United States, despite the conflicts of different interests and contending economic and social forces, is bound together by political pluralism, by decision-making structures that include feedback mechanism and a relatively tolerant attitude toward dissent, where societal activism and protest are social norms. Environmental activism has grown from protest groups to multifaceted professional organizations that research, lobby, provide public information, and expert advice to the government, and fulfill a number of other functions in the environmental dynamic. Environmental groups do not only offer criticism for governmental failures, but also provide support for governmental environmental policies, and mobilize the public. Increasing interactions between government and society became a matter of policy to be formulated and implemented. Moreover, governance capacity was conditioned by the fact that society was willing to give its support to a polity, which is thereby granted the authority to allocate power and determine social values.
SOVIET RUSSIA
The historical context in Russia — from Tsarist to Soviet — was authoritarian [26]. The strength and longstanding centralization of power and mobilizational resources by the state left a significant structural and institutional legacy, which dramatically altered the ability of autonomous societal actors to form associations and join groups [5, 9]. Russia developed the traditional type of state where a very hierarchical, paternalistic attitude was geared toward the whole society, all its socio-economic and cultural layers. The state was meant to play a prominent role in resolving problems, which determined the fate of the country and society. The decades of the Soviet state planning and one-party rule only reinforced the centrality of the government in the country. The state was in control of production, revenue and spending, foreign relations, censorship, education, and social organization. The state, as
a major actor, carried out planned events, seeking to take into account the interests of all social groups without exception, but preventing, controlling, or sanctioning them from expressing these interests [2].
The Soviet environmental policy process, however, is abound of with examples of societal group activity, where the multiplicity of bureaucratic and specialist organizations exercised some role in the formulation and implementation of policy [30]. The state corporatist model of interest representation portrays the Soviet environmental policy process. Under state corporatism, the environmental interests «are organized into limited number of singular, compulsory, noncompetitive, hierarchically ordered ...categories...recognized and licensed (if not created) by the state...» [21: 93-94]. The notion of state corporatism is much different from societal corporatism and pluralism in giving a much greater role to the state in problem identification, agenda formation, and policy implementation. The state, not the societal groups, remains a major actor, proposing initiatives and promoting or forbidding group attention to the issues [30].
Environmental protection in general and air and water quality control in particular were overshadowed by a need for post-war industrialization up until the late 1950s. Nonetheless, the Soviet Union actively conducted research, produced a majority of publications in the world on air pollution, and established the first ambient standards [13]. State corporatism became more prominent in the 1960s when the ideological component of interest representation in the increasingly complex society, with the growing economy, lost most of its salience. Regime legitimacy and greatness started to rest on the notions of scientific, economic, political, and patriotic accomplishments [30]. By the early 1960s, during the period of relative decentralization, the fifteen union republics that comprised the USSR all passed some form of nature protection laws. The most significant of the Soviet republican laws was the conservation law enacted by the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR). The high level of attention to the conservation law was reflected by the inefficiencies in the system of economic planning. The law was not the result of environmental interest pressures or activism, it was an official response, but the one that opened some avenues for discussion. The law urged participation of public organizations and voluntary societies in conservation efforts, thus approving the general idea of societal participation. The idea of public participation was reinforced by the proclamation of the "all-people's state" concept of the developed socialism, which was supposed to involve people more fully in the governance process. The Komsomol, local Soviets, trade unions, local government councils, and nature conservation societies were becoming engaged in social control and involving the public more directly in governing [1, 28, 30]. Public conservation activities were carefully monitored by Party-dominated economic and social organizations. Yet, the harm to the Lake Baikal from the effluent wastewater expanded the public commitment to conservation and environmental protection in general [14]. By the mid-1960s, a diverse group of scientists, representatives of mass associations, writers, and public officials expressed significant concern over the Lake Baikal. The government responded to the calls to protect the lake and passed two resolutions. The tactics used by the environmental interests, accusing the polluter in damaging the public good, demonstrated its effectiveness especially as a crucial component of a systemic approach to development, that reflects national priorities.
By the 1970s, environmental protection reached the institutional agenda and became a priority in the highest echelons of power in the USSR. Its primary expression is found in the 1977 USSR Constitution, which provided for the rational use of natural resources and preservation of environmental quality (Article 18). The decade of the 1970s brought two seminal governmental resolutions, development of environmental standards, and an incorporation of environmental quality indicators into the planning mechanism of the country [13]. As well as in the United States during the 1970s, the Soviet system of policymaking was the focus of political activity at the federal level. Implementation of environmental policy, control over financial and material resources, as well as organizational authority came from the top, with regional and local authorities yielding to national plans. Soviet environmentalists emphasized the need for the specialist expertise to reflect on the negative implications of the development on the
environment. The Academy of Sciences and its many institutes were involved in the study of ecology, and scientists working in theses institutes were publishing their findings in journals, books, magazines, and newspapers. The specialists, including, biologists, engineers, chemists, economists, sociologists, and others enjoyed greater influence over formulation and implementation of policy, as their research and attention to particular issues was considered to be expertise, and was much more accepted by the government. Specialist participation was organized by the ministries, departments, committees or research institutes, with very limited form of independent communication. Access to policy makers was also significantly correlated with professional rank and institutional standing.
The participation by non-specialists was mostly limited to the outputs of environmental policy and carried a symbolic character assisting mostly with the implementation of policy. People could provide comments on solicited proposals, participate through local government institutions, and nature preservation societies. The All-Russian Society for the Protection of Nature had almost 33 million members by the 1980s. Officially recognized functions of the members commenting of policy drafts, conducting factory inspections, assisting in facility citing, giving support for parks and wildlife [1, 30].
Formation of societal environmental activism began in the mid-1980s largely on the basis of liberal ideas of glasnost [25]. However, societal groups had to learn how to institutionalize those ideals through its own efforts. Starting with 1985 there were several significant changes in the development of environmental activism in Russia, which heavily depended on the form the government and the socio-economic context took during the periods of 1985-89, 1989-91, and after 1991. The government passed through several stages from state socialism through liberalizing socialism to bureaucratic capitalism respectively [27]. In a society in transition, where the state once controlled all social activities, the mobilization of independent nongovernmental organizations was seen as the rise of a civil society. Although, stagnation in the economy, the extensive, technologically backward character of production together with the bureaucratic administration in all spheres of life decreased the ability of groups to organize effectively, liberalization of economy and democratization of the government allowed for a birth of nascent social activism, including environmental groups [8, 25, 26]. From the late 1980s, environmental activism has progressed from mass-political movement using the strategy of self-realization and self-preservation to mainly professionalizing and formalizing activism based on strategies of rational and pragmatic communication with the government. In 1988, the first allUnion umbrella environmental organization, the Socio-Ecological Union, was established on the base of a network uniting about two hundred nature protection corps across the country [27, 28]. During perestroika years, in general, citizens were becoming more aware of their environmental conditions, social environmental organizations were taking shape, and an environmental agenda was emerging, with the goal to influence environmental governance [1]. The Soviet Russian environmental movement persevered decades of intensely changing societal conditions and developing significant variation in the type of activism contributing to environmental, social and political change.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
There are several important observations that can be drawn from the analysis of environmental interests in the United States and Russia, and their influence on governance capacity. First, in the United States, many organizations concerned with environmental policy have pursued a pluralist competition of ideas and values of democracy in the environmental field. Representation of environmental interests and implementation of environmental policies were promoted by securing the diverse and dynamic civil space for environmental movements. The established civil society gave rise to societal environmental interests. In Russia, on the other hand, the main concern for environmental activism was how to work under the immense influence of the state, and how to start influencing the environmental policy formulation. Environmental mobilization to a large degree also gave rise to the development of civil society. Second, in the United States government engaged in regulating the environment because market forces were unable and unwilling to deal with environmental challenges and because society
was demanding environmental protection. Expansion of societal environmental activism was happening in response to diminishing capacity of the government to cope with environmental challenges. In Russia, before perestroika government regulated all the spheres of society and economy. Societal environmental activism arose in response to ineffective governmental regulation, as well as a demand for liberalization. Third, in both countries, many societal organizations emerged in large measure from the activity of established intellectuals and scientists. Especially this is applicable to the emergence of the environmental groups, when scientists were followed by intellectuals, writers, and students, where the tendency toward professionalization played a critical role in the activity of societal groups. Fourth, in both countries, the need to increase governance capacity of dealing with environmental problems led to the emergence and strengthening of environmental activism. As a source of support for the government and, potentially, as a source of increase in policy making capacity, environmental activism offered the public a way of engaging in dialogue with the most powerful stake-holders in policy making, provided expert advice and new ideas to governments and the channels for articulating opinions of concerned public, as well as participated in the evolution of environmental protection activities.
REFERENCES
1. Altshuler, I.I and Mnatsakanyan, R.A.The Changing Face of Environmentalism in the Soviet Union, Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 32(2): 4-30, 1990.
2. Baliushina, Y.L.Sotsial'noe Gosudarstvo v Rossii: Istoriya i Sovremennost'. Folosofiya. Etika. Estetika. Vestnik KGU of N.A. Nekrasov. No.1., 2010.
3. Carmin, J.Voluntary Associations, Professional Organizations and the Environmental Movement in the United States. In: Rootes, Christopher. 1999. Environmental Movements: Local, National and Global. Frank Cass, 1999.
4. Cigler, A. J. and Loomis, B.A. Interest Group Politics. 3d editon. CQ Press, A Division of Congressional Quarterly Inc. Washington, D.C., 1991.
5. Dawson, J.I.Eco-Nationalism: Anti-nuclear Activism and National Identity in Russia, Lithuania, and Ukraine. Duke University Press, Durham and London, 1996.
6. Eyerman, R. and Jamison, A. Social Movements: A Cognitive Approach. The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, PA, 1991.
7. Fiorino, D.J. Environmental Policy and the Participation Gap. In: Lafferty, William M. and James Meadowcroft. Democracy and the Environment: Problems and Prospects. Edward Elgar. Cheltenham, UK and Brookfield, US, 1996.
8. Henry, L. Red to Green: Environmental Activism in Post-Soviet Russia. Ithaca, NY; London: Cornell University Press, 2010.
9. Hosking, G.The Awakening of the Soviet Union. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1990.
10. Hudson, R.Towards Sustainable Industrial Production: But in What Sense Sustainable? In: Taylor, Michael. Editor. 1995. Environmental Change: Industry, Power and Policy. Avebury, Aldershot, Brookfield, USA, Hong Kong, Singapore, Sydney, 1995.
11. Janicke, M. Democracy as a Condition for Environmental Policy Success: The Importance of Non-Institutional Factors. In: Lafferty, William M. and James Meadowcroft. 1996. Democracy and The Environment: Problems and Prospects. Edward Elgar. Cheltenham, UK and Brookfield, US, 1996.
12. Jeffrey, D.W.The Role of the Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations in the Twenty First Century. Biology and Environment: Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 101B, No. 1-2, 151-156, 2001.
13. Kochtcheeva, L.V. Comparative Environmental Regulation in the United States and Russia: Institutions, Flexible Instruments, and Governance. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 2009.
14. Lubomudrov, S. Environmental Politics in the Soviet Union: The Baikal controversy. Canadian Slavonic Papers, 20(4): 529-543, 2015.
15. Mason, Michael. Environmental Democracy. St.Martin's Press. New York, 1999.
16. Mazmanian, D. A. and Sabatier, P.A. Implementation and Public Policy. Scott, Foresman and Company. Dallas, TX, Oakland, NJ, Palo Alto, CA, Tucker, GA., London, England, 1983.
17. Meyer, D. S. and Tarrow, S.The Social Movement Society: Contentious Politics for a New Century. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Oxford, 1998.
18. Nye, J. S. and Donahue, J.D.Governance in a Globalizing World. Brookings Press, 2000.
19. Offe, C. New Social Movements: Challenging the Boundaries of Institutional Politics. In: Social Research. 52(4): 816-868, 1985.
20. Princen, T. and Finger, M. Environmental NGOs in World Politics: Linking the Local and the Global. Routledge. London and New York, 1994.
21. Schmitter, P. Still the Century of Corporatism? The Review of Politics, 36(1), 85-131, 1974.
22. Spears, E.G.Rethinking the American Environmental Movement Post-1945. New York, NY: Routledge, 2019.
23. Steel, B., S, Clinton, R. L, and Lovrich, N.P.Jr. Environmental Politics and Policy: A Comparative Approach. McGraw Hill, 2003.
24. Tarrow, S.Struggling to Reform: Social Movements and Policy Change During Cycles of Protest. Western Societies Program. Occasional Paper No15. Center for International Studies, Cornell University, 1983.
25. Weigle, M.A. Russia's Liberal Project: State-Society Relations in the Transition from Communism. The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, PA, 2000.
26. Yanitsky, O.Russian Environmentalism: Leading Figures, Facts, Opinions. Social-Ecological Union. Mezhdunarodnye Otnoshenija Publishing House, Moscow, 1993.
27. Yanitsky, O. Rossiya: Ecologichesky Vyzov (Obshestvennoe Dvizhenie, Nauka, Politika). (Russia: Environmental Challenge (Social Movement, Science and Politics). RAS, Institute of Socilogy, Sibirskii Khronograph, Novosibirsk, 2002.
28. Yanitsky, O. From Nature Protection to Politics: the Russian Environmental movement 1960-2010. Environmental Politics. 21(6): 922-940, 2012.
29. Zald, M. N. and McCarty, J.D.The Dynamics of Social Movements: Resource Mobilization, Social Control, and Tactics. Winthrop Publishers, Inc. Cambridge, MA, 1979.
30. Ziegler, C.E. Environmental Policy in the USSR. The University of Massachusetts Press, 1987.
