Post-Soviet Neopatrimonial Studies as a Field in Comparative Political Science

Annotation

The main purpose of the work is to substantiate post-Soviet neopatrimonial research as a special field in political comparative studies, which began to be actively formed in the first decades of the 21st century. Using the method of historical retrospect, the author examines the main stages of the formation of this field in foreign and Russian political science, characterizes its current state and prospects for further development. The author hypothesizes that the neopatrimonial approach has now become a real alternative to Western «transitology», being an effective means of research and comparative analysis of the political systems of post-communist states. To prove this hypothesis, the author conducted a critical analysis of the scientific literature characterizing the content of the neo-patrimonial approach and the concepts of political development of post-Soviet states developed on its basis. There are great differences in the views of researchers on the nature of neopatrimonialism, the effectiveness of neopatrimonial practices, and the criteria for classifying neopatrimonial systems. All this actualizes the discussion about neopatrimonialism and contributes to the enrichment of scientific knowledge in this field. At the same time, the author draws attention to the need to institutionalize this scientific field in Russia and create the research infrastructure necessary for conducting neopatrimonial research. In conclusion, the main objectives of post-Soviet neo-patrimonial research are formulated, which should contribute to the development of effective political development strategies needed by many post-communist states today.

Keywords

• Max Weber
• legitimacy
• political regime
• neopatrimonalism
• bureaucracy
• development
• post-soviet states
• comparative studies
• social development strategy
• state
* click on a keyword to go to the search

References

1. Afanasev, M. N. Klientelizm i rossiyskaya gosudarstvennost: Issledovanie klientarnykh otnosheniy [Clientelism and Russian statehood: A study of client relations]. 2nd ed. Moscow: Moscow Public Scientific Foundation; 2000, 318 p.
2. Balandin, Yu. A. Patronalnaya politika i rotatsiya gubernatorskogo korpusa v sovremennoy Rossii: faktory otstavok i perenaznacheniy (2005–2021) [Patronage policy and rotation of the Governor's office in modern Russia: factors of resignations and reassignments (2005–2021)]. Сand. Polit. Sci. Diss. Moscow; 2024, 194 p.
3. Bitieva, Z. R., Afanaseva, E. V., Yaroshenko, A. S. Teoreticheskie aspekty izucheniya neopatrimonialnyh rezhimov: razvitie kontseptsii neopatrimonializma i ee mesto sredi obyasnyayushchikh modeley [Theoretical aspects of the study of neopatrimonial regimes: the development of the concept of neopatrimonialism and its place among explanatory models]. Vestnik instituta mirovykh tsivilizatsiyj [Bulletin of the Institute of World Civilizations]. 2020, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 14–21.
4. Voslenskiy, M. S. Nomenklatura. Gospodstvuyushchiy klass Sovetskogo Soyuza [Nomenclature. The ruling Class of the Soviet Union]. Moscow: Sovetskaya Rossiya, Oktyabr; 1991, 624 p.
5. Gelman, V. Ya. «Nedostoynoe pravlenie»: politika v sovremennoy Rossii [The Politics of Bad Governance in Contemporary Russia]. Saint Petersburg: European University in St. Petersburg; 2019, 254 p.
6. Davydov, Yu. N. Maks Veber i sovremennaya teoreticheskaya sotsiologiya: Aktualnye problemy veberovskogo sociologicheskogo ucheniya [Max Weber and modern theoretical sociology: Actual problems of Weber's sociological teaching]. Moscow: Martis; 1998, 509 p.
7. Efremenko, D. V. Obzhivaya ruiny sovetskoy sistemy: k voprosu o rossiyskom neopatrimonializme [Inhabiting the Ruins of the Soviet system: on the question of Russian Neopatrimonialism]. Politicheskaya nauka [Political Science]. 2017, no 3, pp. 58–79.
8. Zon, H. van. Kult vlasti [The cult of power]. Mir Rossii. Sotsiologiya. Etnologiya [Universe of Russia. Sociology. Ethnology]. 2007, no 4, pp. 148–159.
9. Kildyushov, O. Maks Veber i postsovetskiy patrimonializm [Max Weber and post-Soviet Patrimonialism]. Available at: http://rueuro.ru/vse-stati-2/obshchestvo/item/230-maks-veber-i-postsovetskij-patrimonializm?ysclid=lqnpe1ntc0805469685 (accessed: 16.02.2026).
10. Maslovskiy, M. V. Teoriya byurokratii Maksa Vebera i sovremennaya politicheskaya sotsiologiya [Max Weber's Theory of bureaucracy and modern political sociology]. Nizhny Novgorod: Nizhny Novgorod State University; 1997, 51 p.
11. Makhmutova, E. V., Okumbekov, R. S. Detsentralizatsiya v neopatrimonialnoy demokratii: preimushchestva, nedostatki i put k potentsialnomu miru [Decentralization in a Neopatrimonial Democracy: Advantages, Disadvantages, and the Path to Potential Peace]. Gumanitarnye nauki. Vestnik Finansovogo universiteta [Humanities. Bulletin of the Financial University]. 2023, no. 13 (3), pp. 39–43, doi: 10.26794/2226-7867-2023-13-3-39-43.
12. Melnikov, K. V. Neopatrimonializm: osnovnye problemy kontseptualtsii i metodologicheskiy potentsial novoy institutsionalnoy teorii [Neopatrimonialism: the main problems of conceptualization and the methodological potential of the new institutional theory]. Cand. Polit. Sci. Diss. Yekaterinburg; 2017, 182 p.
13. Nisnevich, Yu. A., Ryabov, A. V. Postsovetskiy avtoritarizm [Post-Soviet authoritarianism]. Obshchestvennye nauki i sovremennost [Social sciences and contemporary world]. 2017, no. 4,pp. 84–97.
14. Okumbekov, R. S. Osnovnye cherty neopatrimonializma i puti dalneyshego razvitiya v Respublike Kazakhstan [The main features of neopatrimonialism and ways of further development in the Republic of Kazakhstan]. Voprosy politologii [Questions of political science]. 2022, iss. 2 (78), vol. 12, pp. 581–589, doi: 10.35775/PSI.2022.78.2.024.
15. Pivovarov, Yu., Fursov, A. Russkaya sistema [The Russian system]. Rubezhi [Frontiers]. 1995, no. 1–6.
16. Rozov, N. S. Neopatrimonialnye rezhimy: raznoobrazie, dinamika i perspektivy demokratizatsii [Neopatrimonial regimes: diversity, dynamics and prospects of democratization]. Polis. Politicheskie issledovaniya [Polis. Political Studies]. 2016, no. 1, pp. 139–156, doi: 10.17976/jpps/2016.01.10.
17. Sitnikov A. P. Arkhaizatsiya rossiyskogo obshchestva: kulturnye determinanty, formy proyavleniya i perspektivy razvitiya [Archaization of Russian society: cultural determinants, forms of manifestation and prospects of development]. Dr. Philos. Sci. Diss. Maykop; 2022, 307 p.
18. Startsev, Ia. Iu. Neofeodalizm ili neopatrimonializm? Kolichestvennyy analiz politologicheskoy kontseptualizatsii «novogo Srednevekovya» [Neo-feudalism or neopatrimonialism? Quantitative analysis of the political science conceptualization of the «New Middle Ages»]. Vox medii aevi [Vox medii aevi]. 2019, no. 2 (5), pp. 127–149, doi: 10.24411/2587–6619–2019–00017.
19. Fisun, A. A. Ukrainskaya neopatrimonialnaya demokratiya: formirovanie, spetsifika i tendentsii razvitiya [Ukrainian neopatrimonial democracy: formation, specifics and development trends]. Oykumena. Almanakh sravnitelnykh issledovaniy politicheskikh institutov, sotsialno-ekonomicheskikh sistem i tsivilizatsiy [The Ecumene. An almanac of comparative studies of political institutions, socio-economic systems and civilizations]. 2011, iss. 8, pp. 119–127.
20. Fisun, A. K pereosmysleniyu postsovetskoy politiki: neopatrimonialnaya interpretatsiya [Rethinking post-Soviet Politics: a neopatrimonial interpretation]. Politicheskaya kontseptologiya [Political Conceptology]. 2010, no. 4, pp. 158–187.
21. Chayko, I. V. Problemy issledovaniya rezhimnykh transformatsiy, ili neopatrimonialnaya alternativa tranzitologii [Problems of regime transformation research, or a neopatrimonial alternative to transitology]. Politicheskaya kontseptologiya [Political Conceptology]. 2013, no. 1, pp. 131–143.
22. Chayko, I. V. Problemy izucheniya sistemnykh transformatsiy rossiyskogo politicheskogo rezhima [Problems of studying the systemic transformations of the Russian political regime]. Rossiya v globalnom mire: instituty i strategii politicheskogo vzaimodeystviya [Russia in the global world: institutions and strategies of political interaction]. Ed. by l. V. Smorgunov, O. V. Gaman-Golutvina. Moscow: Russian Association of Political Science; 2012, pp. 488–489.
23. Shkel, S. N. Avtoritarizm v postsovetskikh gosudarstvakh Tsentralnoy Azii i Kavkaza: faktory ustoychivosti i rezhimnoy dinamiki [Authoritarianism in the post-Soviet States of Central Asia and the Caucasus: factors of stability and regime dynamics]. Dr. Polit. Sci. Diss. Ufa; 2015, 432 p.
24. Shkel, S. N. Postsovetskiy avtoritarizm v sravnitelnoy perspective [Post-Soviet authoritarianism in a comparative perspective]. Ufa: Gilem; 2013, 349 p.
25. Bach, D. Patrimonialism and Neopatrimonialism: Comparative Trajectories and Readings. Commonwealth and Comparative Politics. 2011, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 275–294, doi: 10.1080/14662043.2011.582731.
26. Berger, P. L. The capitalist revolution. New York: Basic books, Inc, Publ.; 1986, 262 p.
27. Bratton, M., van de Walle, N. Neopatrimonial Regimes and Political Transitions in Africa. World Politics. 1994, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 453–489.
28. Carothers, T. The End of the Transition Paradigm. Journal of Democracy. 2002, vol. 13, iss. 1, pp. 5–21, doi: 10.1353/jod.2002.0003.
29. Dahl, R. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Hawen: Yale University Press; 1971, 258 p.
30. Diamond, L. Civic Communities and Predatory Societies. Culture Matters: A Forum for Business, Education and Training Professionals. Washington: Intercultural Management Institute, American University; 2001, pp. 1–23.
31. GIGA. Research Projects. Available at: https://www.giga-hamburg.de/en/research-and-transfer/projects (accessed: 22.02.2026).
32. Gill, G. The origins of the Stalinist political system. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press; 1990, 454 p., doi: 10.1163/221023994X00161.
33. Gorlizki, Y. Ordinary stalinism: the council of ministers and the soviet neopatrimonial state, 1946–1953. Journal of Modern History. 2002, no. 74 (4), pp. 699–736, doi: 10.1086/376210.
34. Hale, H. E. Patronal Politics: Eurasian Regime Dynamics in Comparative Perspective. Problems of International Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2015, 542 p.
35. Hale, H. Eurasian Polities as Hybrid Regimes: The Case of Putin's Russia. Journal of Eurasian Studies. 2010, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 33–41, doi: 10.1016/j.euras.2009.11.001.
36. Hanson, S. E., Kopstein, J. S. Understanding the Global Patrimonial Wave. Perspectives on Politics. 2021, no. 20 (1), pp. 1–13, doi: 10.1017/S1537592721001195.
37. Hartmann, J. Vergleichende Regierungslehre und Systemvergleich. Einführung in die Politikwissenschaft. Ed. by D. Berg-Schlosser, F. Müller-Rommel. München: Verlag C. H. Beck; 1997, pp. 27–48, doi: 10.1007/978–3–322–97392–4_3.
38. Hout, W. Classical approaches to development: Modernisation and dependency. The Palgrave Handbook of International Development. Ed. by J. Grugel, D. Hammett. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2016, p. 21–39.
39. Hughes, J. Patrimonialism and the stalinist system: the case of S. I. Syrtsov. Europe – Asia Studies. 1996, no. 48 (4), pp. 551–568.
40. Huntington, S. P. The Third wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. London: Norman; 1991, 366 p.
41. Ilkhamov, A. Neopatrimonialism, interest groups and patronage networks: the impasses of the governance system in Uzbekistan. Central Asian Survey. 2007, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 65–84, doi: 10.1080/02634930701423491.
42. Ilyin, M. Patrimonialism. What is Behind the Term: Ideal Type, Category, Concept or just a Buzzword? Yearbook of Political Thought, Conceptual History and Feminist Theory. 2015, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 26–51, doi: 10.7227/R.18.1.3.
43. Ilyin, M. The concept of patrimonial governance: prospects for post-Weberian rediscriptions. Available at: https://www.hse.ru/data/2013/12/10/1339200446/Ilyin%20patrimonialism%20rediscriptions.pdf?ysclid=lx7ij2hsou171163559 (accessed: 17.02.2026).
44. Jowitt, K. New World Disorder: The Leninist Extinction. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1992, 342 p.
45. Kitschelt, H. P., Mandsfeldova Z., Markowski R., To´ka G. Post-Communist Party Systems: Competition, Representation and Inter-Party Cooperation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1999, 476 p.
46. Linden, R. H. Socialist patrimonialism and the global economy: the case of Romania. International Organization. 1986, no. 40 (2), pp. 347–380, doi: 10.1017/S002081830002717X.
47. Linz, H., Stepan, A. Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation. Southern Europe, South America and Post-Communist Europe. Baltimore, London: Johns Hopkins University Press; 1996, 504 p., doi: 10.56021/9780801851575.
48. Magyar, B., Madlovics, B. The anatomy of post–communist regimes: a conceptual framework. Budapest, New York: Central European University Press; 2020, 808 p.
49. Maracha, V., Bespalov, S. Neopatrimonial Model of Public Administration and its Transformation in the Context of Global Uncertainty. EPJ Web of Conferences. 2021, vol. 248, no. 03003, pp. 1–10, doi: 10.1051/epjconf/202124803003.
50. Medard, J. F. Patrimonialism, Patrimonialization, Neo-Patrimonialism and the Study of the Post-Colonial state in Subsaharian Africa. Improved Natural Ressources Management: the Role of Formal Organizations and Informal Networks and Institutions. Ed. by H. S. Marcussen. Occasional Paper, 17. Denmark: Roskilde University; 1996, pp. 76–97.
51. Murvar, V. Max Weber and the two non–revolutionary events in Russia 1917: Scientific achievements or prophetic failures? Max Weber’s Political Sociology: A Pessimistic Vision of a Rationalized World. Ed. by R. Glassman, V. Murvar. London, Westport: Greenwood Press; 1984, pp. 237–272.
52. Pipes, R. Russia under the Bolshevik regime. New York: Vintage Books; 1995, 587 p.
53. Robinson, N. The Political Origins of Russia’s «Culture Wars». Limerick, Ireland: University of Limerick; 2014, 37 p.
54. Robinson, N. Economic and political hybridity: Patrimonial capitalism in the post-Soviet sphere. Journal of Eurasian Studies. 2013, vol. 4, iss. 2, pp. 136–145, doi: 10.1016/j.euras.2013.03.003.
55. Sigman, R., Lindberg, S. Neopatrimonialism and Democracy: An Empirical Investigation of Africa's Political Regimes. The varieties of democracy institute Working Paper. 2017, no. 56, 25 p.
56. Theobald, R. Patrimonialism. World Politics. 1982, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 548–559, doi: 10.2307/2010334.
57. V-Dem. Research Programs. Available at: https://www.v-dem.net/our-work/research-programs/ (accessed: 21.02.2026).
58. Weber, M. Economy and Society. An outline of interpretive sociology. New York: Bedminster Press Incorporated; 1968, 1469 p.
59. Worldwide Governance Indicators. Available at: https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/worldwide-governance-indicators (accessed: 15.02.2026).
60. Zon, H. van. Neo-patrimonialism as an impediment to economic development: the case of Ukraine. Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics. 2001, no. 17 (3), pp. 71–95, doi: 10.1080/714003585.

Popular articles