The Theory of Political Regimes’ Transformation and Nature of Neopatrimonialism

The Theory of Political Regimes’ Transformation and Nature of Neopatrimonialism

Rozov N.S.,

Dr. Sci. (Philos.), Professor, Principal Researcher, Institute of Philosophy and Law, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences; Professor at the Department of International Relations and Regional Studies, Novosibirsk State Technical University, Novosibirsk, Russia ,

elibrary_id: 72298 | ORCID: 0000-0003-2362-541X | RESEARCHER_ID: K-5447-2017

DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2015.06.15

For citation:

Rozov N.S. The Theory of Political Regimes’ Transformation and Nature of Neopatrimonialism. – Polis. Political Studies. 2015. No. 6. P. 157-172. (In Russ.).


This article is a double thought experiment answering to the following questions: 1) how farone can go in explaining the dynamics of political regimes and transitions between them on the basis ofan abstract theory, including a small number of basic categories and postulates; 2) what is the heuristicalpotential of the theory in explaining the nature of neopatrimonial regimes. The Weberian paradigm offour social spheres is used (administrative, military, economic and ideological / cultural / religious).These areas correspond to the social universals: power, violence, property and symbols. When combinedwith a functional scheme of A. Stinchcombe they are explicated as homeostatic variables: the main objectsof concern of social actors. The concepts of political regime, political relations, political interaction,routine and conflict strategies are defined. Transformation of political regime is determined by the changein its core complex of political relations. The conditions of a regime crisis as a conflict between actors forwhich the levels of basic homeostatic variables become unacceptable (from isolation and full dominationto equal partnership and integration) are considered, as well as the laws of formation of each such type ofrelationship. Patrimony as an antithesis of bureaucracy is always reborn and enhanced by weakening thestate and its formal rules and institutions. The nature of neopatrimonialism includes a core patrimony(the network of patronage ties) and the declarative shell of formal democratic institutions which are constructed on impersonal formal principles of bureaucracy. 

political regimes; transformation of regimes; political relations; political interaction; political strategy; neopatrimonialism; hegemony; partnership; domination; political crises; conflicts; conflict dynamics.

Content No. 6, 2015

See also:

Rozov N.S.,
Neopatrimonial Regimes: Diversity, Dynamics, and Prospects for Democratization. – Polis. Political Studies. 2016. No1

Turovsky R.F.,
Regional Political Regimes in Russia: to the Methodology of Analysis. – Polis. Political Studies. 2009. No2

Kuzmin A.S., Melvin N., Nechayev V.D.,
Regional Political Regimes in Post-Soviet Russia: an Essay of a Typology. – Polis. Political Studies. 2002. No3

Tomashov I.A.,
The year of 2012: russian politics and political professions. – Polis. Political Studies. 2012. No3

Round Table of the «Polis» Journal, Gaman-Golutvina O.V., Avdonin V.S., Sergeyev S.A., Chernikova V.V., Sidenko O.A., Sokolov A.V., Evdokimov N.A., Tupaev A.V., Slatinov V.B., Zhukov I.K., Kozlova N.N., Rassadin S.V., Chugrov S.V.,
Regional political processes: how «subjective» are subjects of the RF. – Polis. Political Studies. 2013. No5



Introducing an article

Polis. Political Studies
4 2022

Alekseyeva T.A.
Agent-structure relations: methodology of constructivism

 The article text


   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