Subjectivity of the municipal environment: from the balance of interests to the conjugation of logics
Relevance. The effective resolution of social problems at the municipal level is increasingly associated with the development of constructive interaction among government bodies, the non-profit sector, and business. However, practice often demonstrates a gap between the existence of formal partnership institutions and their actual productivity: collaboration often proves fragile, initiatives stall, and participants report mutual misunderstanding. This necessitates the search for new analytical tools to understand the factors that determine the constructiveness of interaction. Research problem. Dominant approaches in the study of municipal practices rely on actor-centered models, where outcomes are explained by the intentions, interests, and communication quality of the participants. However, the persistent, recurring nature of interaction failures, often occurring despite the declared goodwill of the participants, presents a research puzzle. The question arises: what mechanisms, beyond declared interests and communication quality, determine the final outcome of collaborative activity – its productivity or stagnation? Methods. The study was conducted within a qualitative methodology framework using an inductive design. The empirical basis consisted of 25 semi-structured interviews with representatives of administrations, NGOs, socially oriented businesses, and resource organizations in six municipalities across four constituent entities of the Russian Federation. The sample was expanded based on the principle of theoretical saturation. The analysis involved multi-stage coding and a comparative analysis of narratives to reconstruct the underlying mechanisms of interaction. Research results. The study revealed the existence of stable “institutional logics” (external systems of rules and meanings that actors are pragmatically compelled to follow). These logics were operationalized through three analytical dimensions: a basic code, a key “currency” and operational practices. A map of six key logics was reconstructed: administrative, civic, economic, political, professional, and media. It is shown that constructive interaction is enabled by a “coupling mechanism” (the creation of interfaces that are simultaneously “legible” to different logics). Two methods of coupling were identified: situational “manual coupling” and more stable “unified coupling”. The dynamics of the environment's development from an absence of coupling to the accumulation of interfaces were reconstructed, leading to an increase in diversity and the emergence of an emergent property: the “emergent agency of the environment”. Conclusions. An operational model was developed in which the constructiveness of the municipal space is determined not by the balance of actors' interests, but by the quality and density of couplings between institutional logics. The environment's development is morphogenetic in nature: tension between logics stimulates the search for new interfaces, and their crystallization changes the state of the environment. The emergent agency of the environment appears as a bottom-up result of accumulating couplings, rather than a top-down design. The model refines the institutional logics perspective by shifting the focus from competition to compulsory coupling.
Figures
Demyanenko, V. I. (2025), “Subjectivity of the municipal environment: from the balance of interests to the conjugation of logics”, Research Result. Sociology and management, 11 (4), 213-227


















While nobody left any comments to this publication.
You can be first.
Antipin, I. A., Vlasova, N. Yu. and Novikova, N. V. (2023), “Initiative budgeting – development trends in Russian regions and evaluation problems: the case of the Sverdlovsk region”, Ars Administrandi (Iskusstvo upravleniya), 15 (4), 722-738, DOI: 10.17072/2218-9173-2023-4-722-738, EDN: XGQJRC. (in Russian)
Bogdanov, V. S. and Pochestnev, A. A. (2024), “Remote social expertise of national projects”, RUDN Journal of Sociology, 24 (3), 699-714, DOI: 10.22363/2313-2272-2024-24-3-699-714, EDN: DTVAQF. (in Russian)
Bourdieu, P. (2005), Sotsiologiya sotsialnogo prostranstva [Sociology of Social Space], Institut eksperimentalnoy sotsiologii, Moscow, Russia. (in Russian)
Giddens, A. (2003), Ustroenie obshchestva: ocherk teorii strukturatsii [The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration], Akademicheskiy proekt, Moscow, Russia. (in Russian)
Guseynova, K. E. and Shilova, V. A. (2024), “Types of organisation of the communicative space of management in the context of the implementation of national projects: a regional perspective”, Sociological Science and Social Practice, 12 (4), 23-39, DOI: 10.19181/snsp.2024.12.4.2, EDN: UJBPNG. (in Russian)
Demyanenko, V. I. (2023), “Assessment of the subjectivity of interaction participants in reducing inequality in Russian regions”, Research Result. Sociology and Management, 9 (3), 123-137, DOI: 10.18413/2408-9338-2023-9-3-0-9, EDN: WFYRHA. (in Russian)
Derbeneva, V. V. (2020), “Electronic public participation as a vector for the development of initiative budgeting”, EKO, 50 (9), 90-113, DOI: 10.30680/ECO0131-7652-2020-9-90-113, EDN: JYFUPA. (in Russian)
Dridze, T. M. (1998), “Eco-anthropocentric paradigm in social cognition and social management”, Chelovek, (2), 85-97. (in Russian)
Zotov, V. V. (2023), “Public and professional expertise of managerial decisions on publicly significant problems of the city”, Research Result. Sociology and Management, 9 (1), 113-125, DOI: 10.18413/2408-9338-2023-9-1-0-10. (in Russian)
Latour, B. (2014), Peresborka sotsialnogo: vvedenie v aktorno-setevuyu teoriyu [Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory], HSE Publishing House, Moscow, Russia. (in Russian)
Luhmann, N. (2004), Obshchestvo kak sotsialnaya sistema [Society as a Social System], Logos, Moscow, Russia. (in Russian)
Martynov, M. Yu. (2024), “Political participation of citizens in the affairs of the local community and the evolution of the institution of local self-government”, Journal of Political Research, 8 (3), 20-32, DOI: 10.12737/2587-6295-2024-8-3-20-32, EDN: DJTESY. (in Russian)
Merzlyakov, A. A. (2023), “Regional inequality management modelling”, Research Result. Sociology and Management, 9 (3), 138-153, DOI: 10.18413/2408-9338-2023-9-3-1-0. (in Russian)
Panov, L. G. (2018), “The political field and institutional logic”, Political Science, (2), 136-150, EDN: UVQPMK. (in Russian)
Pevnaya, M. V., Tarasova, A. N. and Yakubova, E. R. (2023), “Civic participation of youth in small territories of a large industrial region of Russia”, RUDN Journal of Political Science, 25 (3), 722-737, DOI: 10.22363/2313-1438-2023-25-3-722-737, EDN: SAEZFX. (in Russian)
Tikhonov, A. V. (2009), Sotsiologiya upravleniya. Teoreticheskie osnovy [Sociology of Management: Theoretical Foundations], Kanon+, Moscow, Russia. (in Russian)
Ansell, C. and Gash, A. (2008), “Collaborative governance in theory and practice”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18 (4), 543-571.
Archer, M. S. (1995), Realist Social Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511557675.
Bond, S. and Thompson-Fawcett, M. (2007), “Public participation and New Urbanism: a conflicting agenda?”, Planning Theory & Practice, 8 (4), 449-472.
Burt, R. S. (1992), Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Friedland, R. and Alford, R. R. (1991), “Bringing society back in: symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions”, in Powell, W. W. and DiMaggio, P. J. (eds), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 232-263.
Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D. and Rosenthal, R. A. (1964), Organizational Stress: Studies in Role Conflict and Ambiguity, Wiley, New York.
Leclercq, E. M. and Rijshouwer, E. A. (2022), “Enabling citizens’ right to the smart city through the co-creation of digital platforms”, Urban Transformations, 4 (2), 1-22.
Rocha de Azevedo, R., Lopes Cardoso, R., Moreira da Cunha, A. S. and Wampler, B. (2022), “Political effects on the discontinuation of participatory budgeting in municipalities”, Revista de Administração Pública, 56 (3), 349-372.
Star, S. L. and Griesemer, J. R. (1989), “Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39”, Social Studies of Science, 19 (3), 387-420.
Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W. and Lounsbury, M. (2012), The Institutional Logics Perspective: A New Approach to Culture, Structure, and Process, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Zawadzka-Pąk, U. K. (2021), “Accountability, public values, and participatory budgeting in Poland”, Baltic Journal of Law & Politics, 14 (2), 72-100.