Modern trends of public policy’s subjectivity change

  • E. M. Chaltseva V. Stus Donetsk National University
Keywords: public actor, hybridization, network communities, cross-border, institutional uncertainty, public equity, institutionalization


The problem of an institutionalization of public actors and forms of their interaction in contemporary post-modern political space has been analyzed in the article. New tendencies of their subjectivity’s change concerning the formation of the public equity in various types of the modes have been considered: hybridization, individualization, cross-border, conflict and the transformation of the network entities. Information technologies has become to be one of the main instruments of implementation of public policy in modern political conditions, which, in the long term, can be considered as a basis for a transformation of political systems of all types. Change of roles of political subjects is connected with such sociocultural characteristic of the present stage of society’s development as individualization. The individualized subject is in a constant process of formation of their own identity and they look for valuable grounds and orientations in behavioral practice using mechanisms of identification and socialization. Consequently, the social positioning of the individual, identification of individual with the interests and values happens. Change in nature of identity and political culture shows the importance of the following tendency in political practice as a hybridism. Today there are a lot of examples of a hybridism: hybrid modes, states, batches, etc. Interactions between actors of public policy get more and more nonhierarchical nature and the value of horizontal negotiation network model increases. Various forms of transitional states created the same variety of national public ones. For the public policy in transformed states the most actual are such problems as: imitating nature, institutional uncertainty, conflict, institutional “traps”.The key mechanism of the political practice of development of actors is the conversion of different types of resources into the public equity, which is a part of the political equity. The public actors that act in specific institutional regime frameworks possess the incorporated capability to participate in collective and individual actions. This participation is based on their interests, preferences and identity. It has been shown in the article that public actors, which act in a certain environment regime, create special forms of the public equity which reflect efficiency rate, openness and level of conflict of the political system.


1. Habermas, J., 1962. Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit. Untersuchungen zu einer Kategorie der bürgerlichen Öffentlichkeit, Berlin (in Germany)
2. Trust Barometer Global Results 2012, 2015 Edelman Trust Barometer Available at :
3. Beljaeva, N.Ju., Publichnaja politika idet na smenu partijnoj [ Public policy takes the place of the party one]. Regime to access:: (in Russian)
4. Lapkin, V.V., Semenenko, I.S., 2013. «Chelovek politicheskij» pered vyzovami «INFOMODERNITY» [«Political Man» Facing the Challenges of «INFOMODERNITY»]. Polis, 6, 64-81 (in Russian)
5. Semenenko, I. S., 2012. «Chelovek politicheskij» pered al’ternativami obshhestvennyh transformacij: opyt pereosmyslenija individual’nogo izmerenija politiki [«Political Man» against alternatives of social transformation: rethinking experience of the politics’ individual dimension]. Polis,6, 9-26 (in Russian)
6. Morozova, E.V., 2014. Gibridnye subjekty publichnoj politiki: antiisteblishmentskie partii [Hybrid entities of public policy: counter-establishment parties]. Vestnik VGU 4, 90-93 (in Russian)
7. Gnedash, A. A., 2013. Konstruktivnyj potencial setevogo vzaimodejstvija v sfere social’noj politiki [Constructive potential of networking cooperation in the sphere of social policy]. Demokratija i upravlenie 2, 5-12 (in Russian).
8. Setevoj analiz publichnoj politiki, 2012 [Network Analysis of Public Policy]. Moscow, 320 (in Russian).
9. Moskvin, D.E., 2006. Institucional’naja neopredelennost’ [Institutional uncertainty]. Ekonomika i matematicheskie metody 42, 1, 46–48 (in Russian).
10. Polterovich, V.M., 2006. Strategii institucional’nyh reform. Perspektivnye traektorii [Strategies of institutional reforms. Perspective paths]. Ekonomika i matematicheskie metody 72 , 1, 3-18 (in Russian).
11. Kovalev, A.V., Kovaleva, I.V., 2008. Problema institucional’nyh «lovushek» i teorija institutov avstrijskoj shkoly [The problem of institutional «traps» and the Austrian School’s theory of institutions]. Zhurnal mezhdunarodnogo prava i mezhdunarodnyh otnoshenij 2, 28-32 (in Russian).
12. Skorobogackij, V.V., 2011. Institucional’nye lovushki v politike [Institutional traps in politics]. Regime to access: (in Russian).
13. Radaev, V.V., 2003. Sociologija rynkov: k formirovaniju novogo napravlenija. [Sociology of markets: on the formation of a new direction]. Moscow, 9-18 (in Russian).
14. Bourdieu, P., 2001. Forms of Capital Bourdieu, P in: Granovetter, M. and R.Swedberg The Sociology of Economic Life. Westview Press (in French).
15. Radaev, V., 2003. V. Ponjatie kapitala, formy kapitalov i ih konvertacija [The concept of capital, forms of capital and their conversion]. Moscow, 5-17 (in Russian).
16. Knopfel, P., 2010. Analіz ta pіlotazh publіchnoї polіtiki [Analysis and Public Policy’s Pilotage]. Kyiv, 587 (in Ukrainian).
17. Lukin, V., Musienko, T., 2014. Social’nyj kapital i doverie kak faktory obshhestvennoj i politicheskoj konsolidacii [Social capital and trust being factors of social and political consolidation]. Regime to access: (in Russian).
18. Shapovalenko, M., 2014. Polіtichna stabіl’nіst’ ta polіtichnij kapіtal v umovah transformacії suspіl’stva [Political stability and political capital in conditions of transformational society]. Naukovij chasopis NPU іm. M.P. Dragomanova. Serіja 22, 41-51 (in Ukrainian).
How to Cite
Chaltseva, E. (2016). Modern trends of public policy’s subjectivity change. Grani, 19(12), 57-65.