Neopatrimonial Regimes:
Diversity, Dynamics, and Prospects for Democratization

Rozov N.S.,

Dr. Sci. (Philos.), Professor, Principal Researcher, Institute for Philosophy and Law (Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences); Head of Department for Social Philosophy and Political Science, Novosibirsk State University; Professor, Novosibirsk State Technical University,

elibrary_id: 72298 |

DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2016.01.10

For citation:

Rozov N.S. Neopatrimonial Regimes: Diversity, Dynamics, and Prospects for Democratization. – Polis. Political Studies. 2016. No. 1. P. 139-156. (In Russ.).


This paper develops the previous publication of the author (“Polis. Political Studies”. No. 6. 2015. P. 157‑172) where he presented a theory of transformation of political regimes, analyzed the conceptsof political regime, political relations, political cooperation, routine and conflict strategies, described theconditions of regimes’ crises and the nature of neopatrimonialism. Here the author’s attention is focusedon the structural typology of neopatrimonial regimes which is built on the basis of different relationsbetween the regime’s core (the patronage network) and the periphery (groups and individuals outsideof the network). Thus partial democracy, harsh authoritarianism and totalitarianism are distinguished,each with its own specifics of neopatrimonial relations. The diversity of neopatrimonial regimes in Africa,Latin America and post-Soviet space is considered in these terms. The factors of stability and turbulence,the reasons for choosing a particular vector of regime’s transformation are analyzed. The post-Sovietregimes changes are considered in three dimensions: democracy – authoritarianism – totalitarianism,the level of bureaucratization, and stability – turbulence – crisis. The known factors of state breakdownsand regime transformations are refined for neopatrimonialism, and conditions for post-crisis democraticdevelopment are formulated on the elaborated theoretical basis.

neopatrimonialism; bureaucratization; regime’s transformation; political relations; political crises; post-Soviet regimes; the conditions of democratization.

Content No. 1, 2016

See also:

Rozov N.S.,
The Theory of Political Regimes’ Transformation and Nature of Neopatrimonialism. – Polis. Political Studies. 2015. No6

Nisnevich Yu.A., Ryabov A.V.,
Modern Authoritarianism and Political Ideology. – Polis. Political Studies. 2016. No4

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

Gelman V.Ya.,
Post-Soviet Regime Transformations: toward a Theory Building. – Polis. Political Studies. 2001. No1

Melnikov K.V.,
Neopatrimonialism: Classification as a Way of Overcoming the Conceptual Stretching. – Polis. Political Studies. 2018. No2



Introducing an article

Polis. Political Studies
6 2011

Shestopal Ye.B.
The state and the citizen: tragedy or drama?

 The article text


   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