Institutional political science 2.0: theoretical and empirical dimensions

V.S. Avdonin

doi:10.17976/jpps/2026.01.12

Institutional political science 2.0:
theoretical and empirical dimensions

Avdonin V.S.,

INION RAS, Moscow, Ruddia, avdoninvla@mail.ru

elibrary_id: 646856 |

Article received: 2025.08.18 21:28. Accepted: 2025.11.01 21:28

DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2026.01.12
EDN: HMAZUR

Rubric: Reflecting on matters in print

For citation:

Avdonin V.S. Institutional political science 2.0: theoretical and empirical dimensions. – Polis. Political Studies. 2026. No. 1. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2026.01.12. EDN: HMAZUR (In Russ.)

Abstract

This article examines a project to update the theoretical and methodological arsenal of institutional political science, provisionally titled “Institutional Political Science 2.0” proposed by a group of Russian authors. It includes the development of concepts and typologies at the theoretical level and their subsequent substantiation and verification in a series of empirical studies of recent Russian politics. The article demonstrates that theoretical work with the concepts of “politics” and “the political” is conducted at the intersection of institutional political science and political philosophy, which facilitates a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of theoretical issues. The authors relate their developments to the contemporary neo-institutional approach, and in a broader political-philosophical sense to the “non-Machiavellian” tradition of political thought, which allows for the inclusion in the discussion of philosophical ideas from Antiquity, contemporary political philosophy, and contemporary political theories, in particular the theories of structuration, deliberation, neo-republicanism. The main results of the theoretical developments of the “Political Science 2.0” project are analyzed: the complex concept of “modern politics”, the associated political-institutional typology of “political space”, which distinguishes within it the “field of politics” and the “area of ascendency”, as well as the complex (“dual-core”) concept of ascendancy. The article concludes with a consideration of the application of the project’s theoretical tools to empirical research on Russian politics in the period 2018-2022, documenting the weakening of the potential of “modern politics” in Russian society and the expansion of the “area of ascendency” within it.

Keywords

institutional political science, politics and the political, modern politics, political space, political field, area of ascendency, institutionalization, politicization, depoliticization, Russian politics of the early 2020s..

References

Archer, M. (1995). Realist social theory: the morphogenetic approach. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511557675

Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Habermas, J. (1981). Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. (Bd. 1: Handlungsrationalität und gesellschaftliche Rationalisierung, Bd. 2: Zur Kritik der funktionalistischen Vernunft). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.

Haugaard, M. (2010). Power: a family resemblance concept. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 13(4), 419-438. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367549410377152

Kailitz, S. (2013). Classifying political regimes revisited: legitimation and durability. Democratization, 20(1), 39-60. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2013.738861

Kneuer, M., & Demmelhuber, Т. (2015). Gravity centers of authoritarian rule: a conceptual approach. Democratization, 23(5), 775-796. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2015.1018898

Linz, J.J. (1975). Totalitarian and authoritarian regimes. In F.I. Greenstein, & N.W. Polsby (Eds), Handbook of Political Science, Bd. 3: Macropolitical Theory (pp. 175-411). Boston: Addison Wesley. https://doi.org/10.1007/97 8-3 -53 1-90400-9 _65

Muffe, Ch., & Laclau, E. (1985). Hegemony and socialist strategy. London; New York: Verso.

Schmitt, C. (1963). Der Begriff des Politischen: Text von 1932 mit einem Vorwort und drei Corollarien. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.

Sternberger, D. (1978). Drei Würzeln der Politik. Frankfurt am Main: Insel-Verlag.

Trent, J., & Stein, M. (Eds.). (2012). The world of political science: a critical overview of the development of political studies around the globe: 1990-2012. Opladen; Farmington Hills: Barbara Budrich Publishers.

Arendt, H. (1958). Vita activa or on the active life. (Russ. ed.: Arendt, H. Vita activa, ili O deyatel’noi zhizni. Saint Petersburg: Aletheia. 2000).

Bourdieu, P. (2005). Sotsial’noye prostranstvo: polya i praktiki [Social space: fields and practices]. Moscow: Institute of Experimental Sociology; Saint Petersburg: Aletheia. (In Russ.)

Golosov, G.V. (2001). Sravnitel’naya politologiya [Comparative political science]. Saint Petersburg: EUSP Press. (In Russ.)

Kuchinov, A.M. (2017). Margaret Archer’s theory of social morphogenesis and reflexivity (summary abstract). METHOD: Moscow Yearbook of Papers from the Social Sciences, 7, 365-392. (In Russ.)

Ledyaev, V.G. (2019). Conceptual analysis of power: basic issues and current trends. Political Science (RU), 3, 14-29. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31249/poln/2019.03.01

Mouffe, Ch. (2004). For an agonistic model of democracy. (Russ. ed.: Mouffe, Ch. K agonisticheskoi modeli demokratii. Logos, 2, 180-197).

Panov P.V. (2009). Institutional order: conceptual frameworks for understanding and research. Political Science (RU), 3, 20-38. (In Russ.)

Patrushev, S.V. (Ed.). (2006). Institutsional’naya politologiya. Sovremennyi institutsionalizm i politicheskaya transformatsiya Rossii [Institutional political science. Modern institutionalism and political transformation of Russia]. Moscow: Institute Comparative Political Science RAN. (In Russ.)

Patrushev, S.V. (Ed.). (2024). Institutsional’naya politologiya 2.0. Transformativnaya politika v Rossii: sotsial’nye aktory i politicheskie instituty v prostranstve vlasti i gospodstva [Institutional political science 2.0. Transformative politics in Russia: social actors and political institutions in the space of power and domination]. Moscow: ROSSPEN. (In Russ.)

Patrushev, S.V., & Filippova, L.E. (Eds.). (2018). Konstituirovanie sovremennoi politiki v Rossii: institutsional’nye problem [Constitutionalization of modern politics in Russia: institutional problems]. Moscow: ROSSPEN. (In Russ.)

Patrushev, S.V., & Filippova, L.E. (Eds.). (2019). Gospodstvo protiv politiki: rossiiskii sluchai. Ehffektivnost’ institutsional’noi struktury i potentsial strategii politicheskikh izmenenii [Domination versus politics: the Russian case]. Moscow: ROSSPEN. (In Russ.)

Patrushev, S.V., & Filippova, L.E. (Eds.). (2020). Struktury gospodstva, grazhdane i instituty [Structures of domination, citizens, and institutions]. Moscow: ROSSPEN. (In Russ.)

Rothstein, B. (1999). Political institutions – an overview. (Russ. ed.: Rothstein, B. Politicheskie instituty: obshchie problemy. In R.E. Goodin, & H.D. Klingemann (Eds.), Politicheskaya nauka: novye napravleniya [A New Handbook Political Science]. Moscow: Veche).

Skinner, Q. (2009). Machiavelli: a very short introduction. (Russ. ed.: Skinner, Q. Machiavelli. Ochen’ kratkoe vvedenie. Moscow: AST).

Solovyov, A.I. (2024). Agents and mechanisms of political domination, or How a “winning coalition” rules. Polis. Political Studies, 2, 96-117. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2024.02.08

Weber, M. (2019). Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Grundriss der verstehenden Soziologie. (Russ. ed.: Weber, M. Khozyaistvo i obshchestvo: ocherki ponimayushchei sotsiologii. Vol. IV. Gospodstvo. Moscow: The HSE Publishing House).

Content No. 1, 2026