How about a conversation? Socio-organizational characteristics of collective action in contemporary Moscow

How about a conversation? Socio-organizational characteristics of collective action in contemporary Moscow

DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2022.03.13
Rubric: Russia Today

For citation:

Bederson V.D. How about a conversation? Socio-organizational characteristics of collective action in contemporary Moscow. – Polis. Political Studies. 2022. No. 3. P. 176-191. (In Russ.).

The study was supported by a grant from the President of the Russian Federation for state support of young Russian scientists – candidates of sciences (grant MK-328.2020.6). The author is grateful to Vyacheslav Loginov for help with data collection, Eleonora Minaeva and Andrey Semenov for advice and recommendations.


The focus of this study is the mobilization and collective action of contemporary Moscow citizens. The research question deals with the socio-organizational factors that influence collective actions of different types among citizens. The research is based on theories of trust and social capital, as well as organizational density and resource mobilization. The key source of data in the article is the results of a mass representative survey in 30 districts of Moscow, as well as data on NGOs registered in these districts. Based on the analysis of literature, the author puts forward a theoretical assumption about the relationship between the characteristics of interactions and communication of people, as well as organizational structures – with the involvement of citizens in various types of collective actions. The formal models partially confirm the hypotheses. Expectations regarding the relationship between the form of home management, the frequency of interpersonal neighborhood interactions, the ownership and the length of residence did not show a statistically significant relationship with citizens’ participation in collective actions. In contrast, communication factors – involvement in home affairs (participation in meetings and similar activities) and involvement in neighborhood / district social networks and messengers – turned out to be significant and showed a positive association with participation in collective actions of all types. Organizational factors also showed a positive relationship: the analysis suggests that the density of civic associations is associated with the participation of citizens in collective action. At the same time, the organizational factor is significant for collective actions of various types. The results indicate that for Moscow citizens communication in institutional forms is an important pre-condition for mobilizing citizens to participate in collective actions of various types: both politicized in the form of public protest actions and nonpoliticized in the form of charity or subbotniks.

collective action, mobilization, organizational structures, NGOs, civic activism.


Aidukaite, J., & Fröhlich, C. (2015). Struggle over public space: grassroots movements in Moscow and Vilnius. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 35(7/8), 565-580.

Aldrich, D.P., & Meyer, M.A. (2015). Social capital and community resilience. American Behavioral Scientist, 59(2), 254-269.

Aminzade, R. (1973). Revolution and collective political violence: the case of the working class of Marseille, France, 1830-1871. Working Paper 86. Center for Research on Social Organization, University of Michigan.

Argenbright, R. (2016). Moscow under construction: city building, place-based protest, and civil society. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

Bell, S. R., Clay, K. C., & Murdie, A. (2012). Neighborhood watch: spatial effects of human rights INGOs. The Journal of Politics, 74(2), 354-368.

Büdenbender, M., & Zupan, D. (2017). The evolution of neoliberal urbanism in Moscow, 1992-2015. Antipode, 49(2), 294-313.

Enikolopov, R., Makarin, A., & Petrova, M. (2020). Social media and protest participation: evidence from Russia. Econometrica, 88(4), 1479-1514.

Fröhlich, C. (2020). Urban citizenship under post-Soviet conditions: Grassroots struggles of residents in contemporary Moscow. Journal of Urban Affairs, 42(2), 188-202.

Gerber, T., & Zavisca, J. (2018). Civic activism, political participation, and homeownership in four post-Soviet countries. PONARS Eurasia.

Gorokhovskaia, Y. (2018). From local activism to local politics: the case of Moscow. Russian Politics, 3(4), 577-604.

Greene, S.A. (2014). Moscow in movement: power and opposition in Putin’s Russia. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Hampton, K., & Wellman, B. (2003). Neighboring in Netville: how the Internet supports community and social capital in a wired suburb. City & Community, 2(4), 277-311.

Kalyukin, A., Borén, T., & Byerley, A. (2015). The second generation of post-socialist change: Gorky Park and public space in Moscow. Urban geography, 36(5), 674-695.

Kashnitsky, I., & Gunko, M. (2016). Spatial variation of in-migration to Moscow: testing the effect of the housing market. Cities, 59, 30-39.

Kriesi, H. (1996). The organizational structure of new social movements in a political context. In D. McAdam, J. McCarthy, & M. Zald (Ed.), Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings (Cambridge Studies in Comparative Politics) (pp. 152-184). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lind, J. (1974). Political power and collective action: British and Swedish labor movements, 1900-1950. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.

Lindner, R. (1996). The reportage of urban culture: Robert Park and the Chicago School. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

McCarthy, J.D., & Zald, M.N. (1977). Resource mobilization and social movements: A partial theory. American journal of sociology, 82(6), 1212-1241.

McAdam, D., McCarthy, J.D., & Zald, M.N. (Ed.). (1996). Comparative perspectives on social movements: Political opportunities, mobilizing structures, and cultural framings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Putnam, R.D. (2000). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. In L. Crothers, C. Lockhart (Ed.), Culture and Politics (pp. 223-234). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. 349-62397-6_12

Sampson R.J., Morenoff J.D., & Earls F. (1999). Beyond social capital: spatial dynamics of collective efficacy for children. American Sociological Review, 64(5), 633-660.

Sampson, R.J., McAdam, D., MacIndoe, H., & Weffer-Elizondo, S. (2005). Civil society reconsidered: The durable nature and community structure of collective civic action. American Journal of Sociology, 111(3), 673-714.

Sawhney, N., De Klerk, C., & Malhotra, S. (2015). Civic engagement through DIY urbanism and collective networked action. Planning Practice & Research, 30(3), 337-354.

Schieman, S. (2005). Residential stability and the social impact of neighborhood disadvantage: a study of gender-and race-contingent effects. Social Forces, 83(3), 1031-1064.

Shorter, E., & Tilly, C. (1971). The shape of strikes in France, 1830-1960. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 13(1), 60-86.

Smyth, R. (2018). How the Kremlin is using the Moscow renovation project to reward and punish voters. PONARS Eurasia.

Snyder, D. (1975). Institutional setting and industrial conflict: comparative analyses of France, Italy and the United States. American Sociological Review, 40(3), 259-278.

Snyder, D., & Kelly, W. R. (1976). Industrial violence in Italy, 1878-1903. American Journal of Sociology, 82(1), 131-162.

Tilly, C. (1978). From mobilization to revolution. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Zhelnina, A. (2019). National and urban politics converge in Moscow: will local activism prevail? Metropolitics. URL: Local-Activism-Prevail.html (accessed 10.12.2020).


Aver’yanov, K.A., Alferova, A.M., & Avilova, K.V. (2014). Moskva. Istoriya rajonov [Moscow. District history]. Moscow: AST. (In Russ.)

Babkin, A.A. (2018). Micro district online communities as potential agents of public policy in the Volgograd Region. Koncept, 11. (In Russ.)

Chernysheva, L.A. (2020). Online and offline conflicts around urban commons: caring for urban space in the territory of a large housing estate. The Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology, 23(2), 36-66. (In Russ.)

Kleman, K., Miryasova, O., & Demidov, A. (2010). Ot obyvatelej k aktivistam: zarozhdayushchiesya social’nye dvizheniya v sovremennoj Rossii [From philistines to activists: emerging social movements in contemporary Russia]. Moscow: Tri kvadrata. (In Russ.)

Koroleva, M.N., & Chernova, M.A., (2018). Urban activism: management practices of authorities as resources and barriers for urban development projects. Sociological Studies, 9, 93-101. (In Russ.)

Mahrova, A.G., & Golubchikov, O.Yu. (2012). Russian city under capitalism: social transformation of intracity space. Moscow University Bulletin. Series 5, Geography, 2, 26-31. (In Russ.)

Mersiyanova, I.V., & Korneeva, I.E. (2015). “City silence” in Moscow: prerequisites and public involvement in civil society practices. Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes, 6, 48-65. (In Russ.)

Nozdrina, N.N. (2006). Development and territorial differentiation of the housing market in Moscow. Problemy prognozirovaniya, 6, 30-42. (In Russ.)

Pavlov, A.V. (2016). Local urban communities in social networks: between neighborhood and civilian communication. Labirint. Journal of Social and Humanitarian Research, 5, 46-57. (In Russ.)

Polishchuk, L.I. (2011). Social capital in Russia: measurement, analysis, impact assessment. City Government, 6, 83-90. (In Russ.)

Polishchuk, L.I., Borisova, E.N., & Peresetsky, A.A. (2010). Managing common property in Russian cities: an economic analysis of homeowners associations. Voprosy Ekonomiki, 11, 115-135. (In Russ.)

Puzanov, K.A., & Stepantsov, P.M. (2014). Mekhanika Moskvy. Issledovanie gorodskoj sredy [Mechanics of Moscow. Urban environment research]. Moscow: Moscow Institute of Social and Cultural Programs. (In Russ.)

Semenov, A.V. (2019). The roots of the grass: patterns of grassroots urban mobilization in Russia. Sociological Studies,12, 29-37. (In Russ.)

Tykanova, E.V., & Tenisheva, K.A. (2020). Trapped by the “neighborhood effect”: social capital and activism in the new enclave condominiums. The Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology, 23(2), 7-35. (In Russ.)

Shagalov, I. (2014). Evaluation of the effectiveness of the institution of self-organization of citizens at the place of residence. Society and Economy, 7-8, 135-148. (In Russ.)

Shomina, E.S. (2015). Community centers as element of neighboring community infrastructure. Economic and Social Research, 4(8), 95-104. (In Russ.)

Zhuravlev, O., Savel’eva, N., & Erpyleva, S. (2014). Individualism and solidarity in the new Russian civil movements. The Journal of Social Policy Studies, 12(2), 185-200. (In Russ.)

Zverev, A.A. (2017). Political dimension of heritage preservation in Russia: case of Moscow movement Arkhnadzor. RUDN Journal of Political Science, 19(2), 118-129. (In Russ.)

Zvonovsky, V.B., & Merkulova, D.Y. (2015). Competition and solidarity in new territorial communities. Vestnik of Samara State University of Economics, 2, 35-40. (In Russ.) 

Content No. 3, 2022

See also:

Nisnevich Yu.A.,
Political responsibility: institutional way of stating the problem. – Polis. Political Studies. 2013. No4

Nisnevich Yu.A.,
Civil control as mechanism of counteracting corruption: problems of realization in Russia. – Polis. Political Studies. 2011. No1

Zharkov B.N.,
Modern Collective Bargains: Experience of the West and Possibilities of Its Application in the USSR. – Polis. Political Studies. 1991. No3

Goncharov D.V.,
Political Mobilization. – Polis. Political Studies. 1995. No6

Anisimov V.M.,
Civil Control of Military Structures. – Polis. Political Studies. 1995. No4



   2023      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