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.