Congruency as a parameter of political stability

Congruency as a parameter of political stability

Article received: 2019.09.28. Accepted: 2019.12.23
DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2022.05.12

For citation:

Telin K.O. Congruency as a parameter of political stability. – Polis. Political Studies. 2022. No. 5. P. 165-181. (In Russ.).

The research was financed by the grant of the President of the Russian Federation for state support of young Russian scientists – candidates of sciences (project MK-4685.2018.6 “Problems of Political Stability: Modern Approaches”).


Despite the significant number of definitions of “stability” that can be found in contemporary political science, this problematic field, truly critical for applied research of contemporary public governance, is characterized, according to the author, by a lack of attention to improved sociological tools related to the citizens’ assessment of the congruence of public governance and people’s notion about the necessary format of the functioning of the latter. The author sees the key task of the current article to fill this gap and emphasizes that the study of political stability, understood as the legitimate state of the political system, in which its status actors within the framework of existing sustainable institutions are able to initiate and effectively implement the actions necessary for adaptive changes, requires attention not only to the formal and normative side of the activities of the main institutions and not only to the parameters of technical (economic) efficiency, but also to the population’s views and perceptions of observable institutions, mechanisms and structures. In support of his own position, the author refers to the most significant and systematic scientific works devoted to political stability. Within the article, congruency is understood as the state of coherence and mutual acceptability of the institutions of the political system and the dominant elements of political culture. The author discusses the main problems related to the two presented concepts (including existing discussions on the interpretation of both “institutions” and “political culture”). The article emphasizes that, despite the long-standing informative ideas in modern science related to the consideration of congruence and incongruence, there are few applied techniques that could be used for the analysis of existing state systems – and, moreover, some of the approaches, in the theory devoted to the study of public trust and involvement, are already used by politicians in their own reputation and rating interests. In conclusion, the author presents possible tools for measuring congruency – sociological (1), quantitative (2) and a third approach, focusing on the study of attitudes towards separate institutions, perceived as key elements of political system. 

public governance, political stability, congruency, political culture.


Almond, G., & Verba, S. (1963). The civic culture: political attitudes and democracy in five nations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Andolina, A., Keeter, S., Zukin, C. & Jenkins, K. (2003). A guide to the index of civic and political engagement for information on the CIRCLE research project.

Andreadis, I. & Stavrakakis, Y. (2017). European populist parties in government: how well are voters represented? Evidence from Greece. Swiss Political Science Review, 23(4), 485-508.

Barcelo, J. (2017). Ideological consistency, political information and elite–mass congruence. Social Science Quarterly, 98, 144-161.

Casquete, J. (2006). The power of demonstrations. Social Movement Studies, 5(1), 45-60.

Disch, E. (2016). Beyond congruence. In: Buhlmann, M., & Fivaz, J. (Ed.), Political representation. London: Routledge.

Dowding, K., & Kimber, R. (1983). The meaning of political stability. European Journal of Political Research, 11, 229-243.

Eckstein, H. (1971). The evaluation of political performance: problems and dimensions. Beverly Hills: SAGE.

Eckstein, H. (1997). Congruence theory explained. UC Irvine: Center for the Study of Democracy.

Eckstein, H., Gurr, T.R. (1975). Patterns of authority: a structural basis for political inquiry. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

EIU (Economist Intelligence Unit). (2009). Manning the barricades: Who’s at risk as deepening economic distress foments social unrest. London.

Evans, P. (1989). Predatory, developmental, and other apparatuses: a comparative political economy perspective on the Third World state. Sociological Forum, 4(4), 561-587.

Financial flows and tax havens (2015).

Fry, L.W., & Smith, D.A. (1987). Congruence, contingency, and theory building. The Academy of Management Review, 12(1), 117-132.

Girod, D.M., Stewart, M.A., & Walters, M.R. (2018). Mass protests and the resource curse: the politics of demobilization in rentier autocracies. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 35(5), 503-522.

Hood, C. (1976). The limits of administration. London: Wiley.

Hurwitz, L. (1972). Democratic political stability: Some traditional hypotheses reexamined. Comparative Political Studies, 4(4), 476-490.

Jong-A-Pin, R. (2006). On the measurement of political instability and its impact on economic growth. University of Groningen.

Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2010). The worldwide governance indicators methodology and analytical issues.

Kuran, T. (1991). Now out of never: the element of surprise in the east European revolution of 1989. World Politics, 44(1), 7-48.

Lazarev, E. (2018). Laws in conflict: legacies of war and legal pluralism in Chechnya. Columbia University (doctoral thesis).

Mann, M. (1984). The autonomous power of the state: its origins, mechanisms and results. European Journal of Sociology / Archives Europeennes de Sociologie / Europaisches Archiv fur Soziologie, 25(2), 185-213.

Nettle, D., Grace, J.B., Choisy, M., Cornell, H.V., Guegan, J.-F., & Hochberg, M.E. (2007). Cultural diversity, economic development and societal instability. PLoS ONE, 2(9), e929.

Rosenbaum, W.A. (1975). Political culture. New York: Praeger.

Rosenthal, U. (1978). Political order: rewards, punishments and political stability. Alphen aan den Rijn, The Netherlands: Sijthoff & Noordhoff.

Sheafer, T. & Shenhav, S. (2013). Political culture congruence and political stability: revisiting the congruence hypothesis with prospect theory. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 57(2), 232-257.

Thompson, J.B. (2000). Political scandal: power and visibility in the media age. Polity Press. 336 p.

Tusalem, R.F. (2015). Democracies, autocracies, and political stability. International Social Science Review, 90(1).

Fabra Mata, J., & Ziaja, S. (2009). Users’ guide on measuring fragility. German Development Institute, United Nation Development Programme.

Welzel, C., & Inglehart, R. (2009). Political culture, mass beliefs, and value change. In: Haerpfer, C.W. (Ed.), Democratization (pp. 126-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.


Akhremenko, A.S. (2009). Dynamics approach to mathematical modelling of political stability. Polis. Political Studies, 3, 105-112. (In Russ.)

Gel’man, V.Ya. (2019). Nedostoinoe pravlenie. Politika v sovremennoi Rossii [Bad governance. Politics in the contemporary Russia]. Saint Petersburg: EUSP Press. (In Russ.)

Golosov, G.V. (2019). Avtokratiia, ili Odinochestvo vlasti. [Autocracy, or the loneliness of power]. Saint Petersburg: EUSP Press. (In Russ.)

Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2011). Modernization, cultural change, and democracy: the human development sequence. (Russ. ed.: Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. Modernizatsiia, kul’turnye izmeneniia i demokratiia: posledovatel’nost’ chelovecheskogo razvitiia. Moscow: Novoe izdatel’stvo).

Ionin, L. (2010). Apdeit konservatizma [The update of conservatism]. Moscow: HSE. (In Russ.)

Kaplan, B. (2012). The myth of the rational voter: Why democracies choose bad policies. (Russ. ed.: Kaplan, B. Mif o ratsional’nom izbiratele. Pochemu demokratii vybiraiut plokhuiu politiku. Moscow: IRISEN, Mysl’).

Makarychev, A.S. (1998). Stability and instability under democracy: metodological approaches and evaluations. Polis. Political Studies, 1, 149-157. (In Russ.)

Marshakov, V. (2006). Policy performance evaluation and measurement of effectiveness: world experience and Russian prospects. In: Program and Policies Evaluation: Methodology and Application, 1 (pp. 182-209). Moscow. (In Russ.)

Panov, P.V. (2010). Political order and the problem of power reproduction: successor institution. Political Expertise Journal, 3, 19-33. (In Russ.)

Pautova, L.A. (2004). Complex approach to research of social representation of stability. Sotsiologiia, 19, 32-65. (In Russ.)

Pautova, L.A. (2017). In stability we trust? Russia in Global Affairs, 15(2), 154-172. (In Russ.)

Pozhidaeva, E.O., & Telin, K.O. (2016). Political culture as a stability factor in a political system. Moscow University Bulletin. Series 12. Political Science, 3, 93-108. (In Russ.)

Telin, K.O., & Polosin, A.V. (2017). Crisis of stateness: “capabilities” and prospects. Bulletin of Perm University. Political Science, 1, 5-16. (In Russ.)

Ulanovskii, A.M. (2009). Constructivism, radical constructivism, social constructionism: world as an interpretation. Voprosy Psychologii, 2, 35-45. (In Russ.)

van Reybrouck, D. (2018). Against elections: the case for democracy. (Russ. ed.: van Reybrouck, D. Protiv vyborov. Moscow: Ad Marginem). 

Content No. 5, 2022

See also:

Kupryashin G.L.,
Governing through institutional changes. – Polis. Political Studies. 2012. No6

Wallerstein M.,
Election Rules, Parties and Political Stability. – Polis. Political Studies. 1992. No6

Raspopov N.P.,
Socio-Political Stability of a Region - Subject of the RF. – Polis. Political Studies. 1999. No3

Nisnevich Yu.A., Khakhunova A.K.,
Methodology of Comparative Analysis and Classification of Public Administration Systems. – Polis. Political Studies. 2015. No4

Pshizova S.N.,
Is it possible to regulate democracy? Part I.. – Polis. Political Studies. 2013. No6

Screen version