The main question posed by the author of this article is the correlation of the categories “neopatrimonialism” and “political clientelism” and the legitimacy of their identification in the works of modern scientists. As a hypothesis, the thesis is put forward that these terms mean various forms of political organization that can combine or compete with each other. To prove this hypothesis, the following tasks were solved: 1) analysis of key publications on the topic of political clientelism; 2) study of the possibilities of the neopatrimonial approach as a method of analyzing client-patronage systems; 3) critical analysis of various definitions of the terms “patrimonialism”, “neopatrimonialism”, “clientelism”, “patronage” and a number of others; 4) identification of the interrelationships between neopatrimonialism, political clientelism and the results of the political development of individual states. The research focuses on models of client-patronage relations typical of post-communist Russia. For their scientific analysis, the author uses the concepts of “state capture”, “patronage presidency”, “redistributive neopatrimonialism” and others. As a result, conclusions are drawn about the need for a deep revision of existing ideas about the interrelationships between neopatrimonialism, political clientelism and the state of key state institutions, the functioning of which is determined by a combination of formal principles and informal management practices determined by the cultural and historical traditions of the country and the personal qualities of political leaders.

The main question posed by the author of this article is the correlation of the categories “neopatrimonialism” and “political clientelism” and the legitimacy of their identification in the works of modern scientists. As a hypothesis, the thesis is put forward that these terms mean various forms of political organization that can combine or compete with each other. To prove this hypothesis, the following tasks were solved: 1) analysis of key publications on the topic of political clientelism; 2) study of the possibilities of the neopatrimonial approach as a method of analyzing client-patronage systems; 3) critical analysis of various definitions of the terms “patrimonialism”, “neopatrimonialism”, “clientelism”, “patronage” and a number of others; 4) identification of the interrelationships between neopatrimonialism, political clientelism and the results of the political development of individual states. The research focuses on models of client-patronage relations typical of post-communist Russia. For their scientific analysis, the author uses the concepts of “state capture”, “patronage presidency”, “redistributive neopatrimonialism” and others. As a result, conclusions are drawn about the need for a deep revision of existing ideas about the interrelationships between neopatrimonialism, political clientelism and the state of key state institutions, the functioning of which is determined by a combination of formal principles and informal management practices determined by the cultural and historical traditions of the country and the personal qualities of political leaders.