Deformalization of Rules: Cause or Consequence of Institutional Traps?

Deformalization of Rules:
Cause or Consequence of Institutional Traps?

DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2004.06.02

For citation:

Khlopin A.D. Deformalization of Rules: Cause or Consequence of Institutional Traps? – Polis. Political Studies. 2004. No. 6. P. 6-15. (In Russ.).


The article contains analysis of the sources and mechanisms of deformalization of rules in post-Soviet Russia, as well as theoretical discussion of the question of relationship between deformalization of rules and institutional traps. On making analysis of the Russian instance, the author comes to the conclusion that it is incoordination between citizens’ milieux needs and the institutional structure intended for satisfying them that underlies the phenomenon of deformalization. Need for independently organized day-to-day life milieu regulated by unambiguous norms clear to citizens, contradicts dependence of this milieu on formal institutions making use of their commission for arbitrary regulation of civil rights. According to the author’s conclusion, the competitive mode of interaction between formal and informal institutions is today entirely determined by the patrimonial supremacy/subjection system which, while not being legal, remains legitimate in view of the high effectiveness of personal connections as an instrument of defending the rights declared by the RF Constitution and of obviating conflicts with the powers that be. Devaluation of practical significance of the norm of general reciprocity in the performance of public roles stimulates expansion of informal connections into the macro-milieu. The function of these latter consists in eliminating or lessening unilateral institutional dependence of Russians’ various micro-practices, which is conducive to the stabilization of the fragmentarily institutionalized and thus inefficient societal order.

Content No. 6, 2004

See also:

Mironyuk M.G.,
Human Dimension of Federalism (Federalist Theories and Tendencies of the Federative Relations’ Development in Russia). – Polis. Political Studies. 2003. No3

Kovalev V.A., Shabayev Yu.P.,
Ethnicity and Fellow-Citizenship (Ethno-National Movements in Finno-Ugrian Regions of the Russian Federation). – Polis. Political Studies. 2004. No4

Ashikhmina Ya.G., Panov P.V., Podvintzev O.B.,
On Criteria of Elections Estimation. – Polis. Political Studies. 2004. No4

Streltzina M.M.,
Institutional Conditions of Setting Up Governmental Departments in Russia and in the USA (With Russia’s Emergency Situations Ministry and the U.S. Homeland Security Department as Example). – Polis. Political Studies. 2004. No4

Panov P.V.,
Alteration of Electoral Institutions in Russia (Cross-Regional Analysis). – Polis. Political Studies. 2004. No6



   2024      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