Public Policy, Development and Institutions:
Semantic Conjugation Logic and “Forgotten Things” in a New Being Reality

Mikhaylenok O.M.,

Professor, Head of Socio-Political Relations Research Department, Center for Political Science and Political Sociology, Institute of Sociology of FCTAS RAS,

elibrary_id: 385479 |

Nazarenko A.V.,

Senior Researcher, Socio-Political Relations Research Department, Center for Political Science and Political Sociology, Institute of Sociology of FCTAS RAS,

elibrary_id: 722165 |

DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2020.01.14
For citation:

Mikhaylenok O.M., Nazarenko A.V. Public Policy, Development and Institutions: Semantic Conjugation Logic and “Forgotten Things” in a New Being Reality. – Polis. Political Studies. 2020. No. 1. P. 179-191. (In Russ.).


The review of the monograph entitled “Public Policy. Institutions, Digitalization, Development” edited by Professor L. V. Smorgunov is a discourse about the connection of the phenomenon of politics and its public role with the phenomenon of development in the new existential reality. In the new informational polycentric and rhizomatic world, the connection of information, knowledge, culture and power is becoming more and more apparent, which results in the need to reconsider the old approaches to their conceptualization. We see the destruction of the familiar social structures, as each individual turns into a producer of truth. It drastically changes the entire sociopolitical landscape – the political relationships of power begin to penetrate into many things which at first glance have very little in common with politics. The question about the fate of political structures that used to be stable in the past – institutions, the main one being still the state – arises more and more often. To what extent will they be able, under the new conditions, to play the role of a key link for the conceptual transformation of public policy in the direction of development based on the human factor? What is the state of development in the new existential reality and what kind of new model of relations between the whole and the part in such a world can we observe? And finally, what could be the role of a digit, which is in fact identical to institutions in its semantic content – to put everything in order? It is possible that the new information and communication environment with internal free logic and clear boundaries, determined by mathematical rules and technical capabilities of modern communication means, will put everything in order. The whimsical machine-human-society assemblies that develop in this case and are able to function directionally, make us speak not of structures, but rather of space and the flow of development. We can and should speak not about institutions or grammar of a digit, but rather about a new type of political space assembly, under which connections, preserving original agent impulses, are developed. There is a real chance to preserve creative activity of such an assembly aimed at development, and, thus, the statement that it is not politics for development, but, on the contrary, development for politics, is seen as more and more legitimate. 

existence, politics, public policy, development, institution, state, digit, human, network, polycentricity, rhizome, assemblies, space, flow.


Habermas J. 1984. The Theory of Communicative action Vol.1 Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Boston: Beacon Press.

Hall E.T. 1959. The Silent Language. New York: Doubleday.

Williams R. 1958. Culture and Society. London: Chatto and Windus.


Aristotle. 1983. Politika [Politics]. Vol. 4. Moscow: Mysl’.

Bennett D. 2018. Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things (Russ. ed.: Bennett D. Pul’siruyushchaya materiya: politicheskaya ekologiya veshchei. Perm: Hyle Press).

Deleuze G. 2011. Logique du sens (Russ. ed.: Deleuze G. Logika smysla. Moscow: Academic Project).

Deleuze G., Guattari F. 2007. L’Anti-OEdipe – Capitalisme et schizophrenie (Russ. ed.: Deleuze G., Guattari F. Anti-Edip: Kapitalizm i shizofreniya. Ekaterinburg: U-Factory).

Deleuze G., Guattari F. 2010. Mille Plateaux – Capitalisme et schizophrenie (Russ. ed.: Deleuze G., Guattari F. Tysyacha plato. Kapitalizm i shizofreniya. Ekaterinburg: U-Factory).

Eagleton T. 2019. The Idea of Culture (Russ. ed.: Eagleton T. Ideya kul’tury. Moscow: The Higher School of Economics Publishing House).

Foucault M. 2002. Intellectuals and Power: Selected Political Articles, Speeches and Interviews (Russ. ed.: Foucault M. Intellektualy i vlast’: Izbrannye politicheskie stat’i, vystupleniya i interv’yu. Moscow: Praxis).

Freud S. 2009. Vorlesungen zur Einfuhrung in die Psychoanalyse. (Russ. ed.: Freud S. Lektsii po vvedeniyu v psikhoanaliz. Moscow: Academic Project).

Freud S. 2011. Massenpsychologie und Ich-analyse (Russ. ed.: Freud S. Psikhologiya mass i analiz chelovecheskogo “Ya”. Moscow: Academic Project).

Habermas J. 2006. Ein avantgardischer Spursinn fur Relevanzen. Was den Intellektuellen auszeichnet (Russ. ed.: Habermas J. Pervym pochuyat’ vazhnoe. Chto otlichaet intellektuala. – Neprikosnovennyi Zapas. No. 3 (47). URL: (accessed 07.11.2019).

Hegel G.W.F. 2008. Phanomenologie des Geistes. (Russ.ed.: Hegel G.W.F. Fenomenologiya dukkha. Moscow: Academic Project).

Heidegger M. 2011. Sein und Zeit (Russ. ed.: Heidegger M. Bytie i vremya. Moscow: Academic Project).

Heywood A. 2005. Politics (Russ. ed.: Heywood A. Politologiya. Moscow: UNITY-DAN).

Hobbes T. 1991. Leviathan or The Matter, Forme and Power of a Common-Wealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil (Russ. ed.: Hobbes T. Leviafan, ili Materiya, forma i vlast’ gosudarstva tserkovnogo i grazhdanskogo. – Hobbes T. Collected Works. In 2 vol. Vol. 2. Moscow: Mysl’).

Kant I. 1994. Kritik der praktischen Vernunft. (Russ. ed.: Kant I. Kritika prakticheskogo razuma. Moscow: Chorro).

Marx K. 1961. Kritik des Gothaer Programms. (Russ. ed.: Marx K. Kritika Gotskoi programmy. Moscow: State publ. of political literature).

Marx K. 2010. Okonomisch-philosophische Manuskripte aus dem Jahre 1844. (Russ. ed.: Marx K. Ekonomichesko-filosofskie rukopisi 1844 goda i drugie rannie filosofskie raboty. Moscow: Academic Project).

Nietzsche F. 2009. Tak govoril Zaratustra. K genealogii morali. Rozhdenie tragedii. Volya k vlasti. Posmertnye aforizmy [So Spoke Zarathustra. To the Genealogy of Morality. The Birth of Tragedy. Will to Power. Posthumous Aphorisms]. Minsk: Harvest. (In Russ.)

Plato. 2011. Dialogues: Feag, First Alkiviad, Second Alkiviad, Ion, Laches, Kharmid, Lizis. Moscow: Academic project. (In Russ.)

Publichnaya politika. Instituty, tsifrovizatsiya, razvitie [Public Policy. Institutions, Digitalization, Development]. 2018. Ed. L.V. Smorgunov. Moscow: Aspect Press. (In Russ.)

Rousseau J.-J. 1998. Du contrat social ou Principes du droit politique. (Russ. ed.: Rousseau J.-J. Ob Obshchestvennom dogovore, ili Printsipy politicheskogo prava. Moscow: KANON-press, Kuchkovo field).

Schmitt K. 1997. Ponyatie politicheskogo [The Concept of the Political]. – Antologiya mirovoi politicheskoi mysli [Anthology of World political Thought]. Ed. by T.A. Alekseeva. Vol. 2. Moscow: Mysl’. P. 290-310. (In Russ.)

Toshchenko Z.T. 2011. Kentavr-problema: opyt filosofskogo i sotsiologicheskogo analiza [Centaur-Problem: the Experience of Philosophical and Sociological Analysis]. Moscow: New chronograph. (In Russ.) 

Content No. 1, 2020

See also:

Belyayeva N.Yu.,
Evolution of the concept of public policy: attention for «motive forces» and for governing entities. – Polis. Political Studies. 2011. No3

Konkov A.E., Chukov R.S.,
Parliamentary Diplomacy: Developing Relations Between Society and State at the Mega-Political Level. – Polis. Political Studies. 2020. No1

Subdiscipline: Studies of the public politics. – Polis. Political Studies. 2011. No3

Sungurov A.Yu., Raspopov N.P., Glukhova E.A.,
Mediator institutes and their development in contemporary Russia. III. Ombudsman institute. – Polis. Political Studies. 2013. No2

Miroshnichenko I.V., Morozova E.V.,
Network Public Policy: Outlines of Subject Field. – Polis. Political Studies. 2017. No2



Introducing an article

Polis. Political Studies
3 2002

Russian Conservatism: as Discussed by Young Scientists

 The article text (Электронная версия)


   2022      2021   
   2020      2019      2018      2017      2016   
   2015      2014      2013      2012      2011   
   2010      2009      2008      2007      2006   
   2005      2004      2003      2002      2001   
   2000      1999      1998      1997      1996   
   1995      1994      1993      1992      1991