Abstract

This article presents a substantially revised formulation of the concept of Instrumentalized Norm Degradation (IND), defined as the deliberate, selective, and strategically coordinated erosion of formal legal, moral, and customary norms by incumbent political actors in order to reproduce dominant power arrangements. The article argues that IND constitutes a distinct analytical category — neither a synonym of neopatrimonialism nor a residual description of state weakness — but a specific causal mechanism through which normative ambiguity is produced as a governance resource. Illustrative evidence is drawn from West Africa, Eastern Europe, and Latin America.

Keywords: deinstitutionalization, norm manipulation, hybrid regimes, neopatrimonialism, state capture, counter-IND, intentionality, scope conditions.

I. INTRODUCTION: THE PUZZLE OF PRODUCTIVE NORM EROSION

Two stylized facts motivate this article. First, across a wide range of polities — from democratic backsliders in Eastern Europe to competitive authoritarian regimes in West Africa to resource-rich states in Latin America — the erosion of legal, moral, and customary norms does not appear to be random, accidental, or uniformly distributed. It is selective: certain norms are meticulously dismantled while others, whose preservation is instrumentally useful to incumbents, remain intact. Second, this erosion does not consistently correlate with state incapacity, low GDP, or colonial legacies alone. It occurs in states with sophisticated legal systems, significant administrative capacity, and robust formal institutions — suggesting that something other than weakness or underdevelopment is at work.

These two observations constitute the empirical puzzle from which this article departs. If norm erosion were merely a symptom of state weakness, we would expect it to be undifferentiated and correlated primarily with structural constraints. If it were merely corruption, we would expect it to target the private enrichment of individual officials rather than the systemic restructuring of the normative environment. Neither existing framework adequately captures the selectivity, the systemic character, and — crucially — the apparent strategic logic of what we observe.

II. LITERATURE REVIEW AND THE LIMITS OF EXISTING FRAMEWORKS

2.1 State Capture and its Endogenous Actors

The state capture framework, pioneered by Hellman, Jones, and Kaufmann (2003) in post-communist transitions, identifies the process by which private interests shape the foundational rules of the political-economic game. Its central limitation, as subsequent scholarship noted, is the assumption of a clear boundary between private capturers and state captives. Witt (2019) demonstrated that in network-led economies, state actors are simultaneously the architects and primary beneficiaries of capture. This endogeneity problem is not merely definitional: it reflects a theoretical gap in explaining why incumbent actors with already-dominant positions would invest in further normative manipulation. IND begins where state capture reaches its limits — in explaining the logic of incumbents who already hold the state and deploy norm degradation not to capture resources but to foreclose institutional alternatives.

2.2 Neopatrimonialism: What it Explains and What it Does Not

The neopatrimonial tradition — from Eisenstadt (1973) through Médard (1991) and Bayart (1989) — constitutes the most developed framework for understanding personalized domination in post-colonial states. Médard’s formulation centers on the confusion between public and private patrimony; Bayart’s account of the politics of the belly emphasizes extraversion strategies and the rhizome-like capacity of African elites to appropriate external resources while maintaining internal dominance. IND operates at the level of causal mechanisms, specifying how normative erosion is produced, by whom, through what instruments, and under what conditions. It is therefore not a synonym of neopatrimonialism but a specified mechanism that can operate — with varying intensity — within neopatrimonial regimes, competitive authoritarian regimes, and even formal democracies experiencing democratic backsliding.

2.3 Institutional Decay, Backsliding, and the Formal-Informal Interface

Huntington’s (1968) concept of institutional decay and its contemporary revival in Fukuyama’s (2014) analysis of repatrimonialization establish the processual dimension of institutional decline. Levitsky and Ziblatt (2018) and Bermeo (2016) have mapped the modal forms of democratic backsliding, demonstrating that authoritarian regression in contemporary polities typically occurs through legal channels rather than coups. Helmke and Levitsky (2004) provide perhaps the most immediately relevant framework: their taxonomy of informal institutions shows how informal rules can substitute for, accommodate, compete with, or complement formal rules. IND builds on this foundation but introduces an actor-centered mechanism missing from their largely structural account: the deliberate production of formal-informal dissonance as a governance tool.

III. CONCEPTUAL CLARIFICATION: DEFINITION, SCOPE CONDITIONS, AND FALSIFIABILITY

3.1 Definition

Instrumentalized Norm Degradation (IND) is defined as a mechanism through which incumbent political actors deliberately and selectively erode formal legal, moral, or customary norms within a bounded institutional arena, with the primary strategic purpose of producing normative ambiguity that enhances executive discretion, forecloses institutional alternatives, and facilitates the reproduction of dominant power arrangements.

Three definitional elements deserve emphasis. First, IND is a mechanism, not a regime type or syndrome: it can be present, absent, or varying in intensity within any regime type that meets the scope conditions below. Second, the word deliberate is necessary but — as Section IV demonstrates — its demonstration does not require reading minds; it requires process evidence. Third, normative ambiguity is the proximate output of IND: the outcome of interest is not simply the violation of rules but the production of a normative environment in which incumbents alone can authoritatively interpret the rules that apply to any given situation.

3.2 Scope Conditions: Where IND Applies and Where It Does Not

We specify four scope conditions that bound the concept’s domain of application. IND is a relevant analytical category only when all four conditions are jointly satisfied.

SC1 — Institutional capacity: IND presupposes a minimum level of formal institutional infrastructure. Where states lack administrative capacity to promulgate, implement, or monitor legal norms, the absence of normative coherence reflects incapacity, not strategy. IND does not apply to collapsed states or territories with negligible formal legal order.

SC2 — Executive concentration: IND requires that incumbent actors hold sufficient centralized power to modulate rule enforcement selectively and insulate themselves from automatic institutional correction. Contexts with robust horizontal accountability — independent judiciaries, effective legislative oversight, free press — structurally impede IND, though they do not eliminate it.

SC3 — Observable selectivity: IND requires that normative erosion be documentably non-uniform: equivalent rule violations must attract systematically different enforcement responses depending on the political alignment of the actors involved. Generalized impunity does not constitute IND; targeted impunity does.

SC4 — Temporal pattern: IND requires evidence of a sequential, cumulative pattern of normative modifications that, taken individually, may appear routine but collectively produce a structural transformation of the normative environment. A single legal manipulation does not constitute IND; a self-reinforcing sequence does.

These conditions specify both where IND applies and — crucially — where it does not. IND does not apply to states experiencing generalized institutional breakdown (SC1 absent), to polities with effective horizontal accountability (SC2 absent), to contexts of undifferentiated enforcement failure (SC3 absent), or to isolated rule violations lacking cumulative pattern (SC4 absent). This permits falsification: a researcher who documents systematic rule enforcement, robust judicial independence, and random rather than selective normative erosion has evidence against IND.

3.3 IND as a Variable, Not a Binary

IND is conceptualized as a continuous variable, not a binary category. Its intensity varies along three dimensions: the scope of normative domains affected (legal only, versus legal and moral and customary); the degree of selectivity in enforcement (high differential treatment versus moderate); and the systemic character of the pattern (isolated episodes versus self-reinforcing sequence). This conceptualization permits comparative measurement across cases, prevents the concept from becoming a label applied wholesale to any polity with governance deficits, and aligns with the growing literature on degree-based rather than kind-based comparative analysis (Munck, 2009).

IV. ADDRESSING THE INTENTIONALITY PROBLEM: A METHODOLOGICAL PROTOCOL

4.1 The Epistemological Challenge

How does an analyst distinguish a regime that orchestrates norm degradation from one engaged in Lindblom’s (1959) classic muddling through — reactive, incremental, and uncoordinated policymaking that produces normative incoherence as an unintended byproduct? This question strikes at the core of the concept because IND’s distinctive theoretical claim rests on the deliberateness of the process. If intentionality cannot be demonstrated independently of outcomes, the concept collapses into tautology: we infer strategy from the existence of the outcome, then explain the outcome by the strategy.

We take this challenge fully seriously and offer a two-stage methodological protocol designed to operationalize intentionality inference without circularity. The protocol draws on Mahoney and Goertz’s (2006) work on causal mechanisms, George and Bennett’s (2005) process-tracing methodology, and Thelen’s (1999) analysis of institutional layering.

4.2 Stage One: Distinguishing IND from Muddling Through

The first stage involves specifying observable implications that differentiate IND from non-intentional norm degradation along four dimensions, summarized in Table 1.

Table 1: Observable Indicators for Distinguishing IND from Muddling Through

Dimension	Muddling Through (Non-IND)	IND (Strategic)
Timing of rule modifications	Reactive, responsive to external shocks or demands	Concentrated around electoral cycles, opposition mobilization, or legal threats to incumbents
Target specificity	Broad and diffuse; multiple actors affected similarly	Narrow and differentiated; sanctions calibrated to political alignment
Internal coherence	Modifications are inconsistent; no cumulative pattern	Modifications exhibit sequential internal logic; each step creates enabling conditions for the next
Elite discourse	Justifications vary; errors acknowledged; corrections attempted	Consistent framing as technical/neutral necessity; resistance to correction; denial of political motivation
Reversibility	Corrections occur when dysfunction becomes apparent	Self-reinforcing; corrections are resisted or blocked

These indicators permit an analyst to construct a profile of the normative modification process that is independent of the outcome (i.e., does not reason from the existence of power reproduction to the presence of intent). Crucially, no single indicator is sufficient; convergence across multiple dimensions is required.

4.3 Stage Two: Process Tracing and Congruence Testing

The second stage deploys two complementary methodological tools. Process tracing (George & Bennett, 2005) reconstructs the decision-making sequence underlying normative modifications, seeking evidence of deliberate planning: internal memoranda, legislative histories, patterns of judicial appointment, testimony of involved actors, and patterns of selective prosecution. This approach is particularly effective when combined with congruence testing (Bennett, 2010): comparing the predictions derived from an IND model against those derived from a muddling-through model, and evaluating which better fits the observable record.

We specify three congruence tests that function as critical discriminating predictions. Under IND: (a) normative modifications should cluster temporally around moments of political threat to incumbents, not around administrative reform cycles; (b) enforcement differentials should predict political outcomes (survival of opposition actors, cooptation of potential defectors) with specificity exceeding chance; and (c) the sequence of normative modifications should exhibit properties of path dependency — each step constraining subsequent alternatives in a direction favorable to incumbents. A muddling-through account generates none of these specific temporal, targeting, or sequential predictions, creating a meaningful empirical gap between the two rival explanations.

We acknowledge a residual limitation: in regimes with significant information opacity, complete process tracing may not be feasible. In such cases, the analyst must explicitly acknowledge the limits of intentionality inference and present findings conditionally. IND should not be asserted as established where only circumstantial pattern evidence is available; the concept then applies tentatively, as a working hypothesis subject to revision.

V. MECHANISMS OF IND

Following the scope condition and intentionality protocol established in Sections III and IV, we specify four causal mechanisms through which IND operates. These mechanisms are understood as observable processes, not inferred intentions. Each can be documented independently.

5.1 Strategic Normative Ambiguity Production

Incumbents enact, maintain, or fail to resolve contradictions between co-existing legal provisions, producing an interpretive environment in which executive actors hold effective monopoly over authoritative norm specification. This mechanism — analogous to what Gallie (1956) called essentially contested concepts but deployed as a governance tool — enhances executive discretion by making legal compliance contingent on political alignment rather than rule content. Observable indicators include: parallel legal provisions with contradictory content persisting over time without resolution; judicial rulings that selectively resolve ambiguity in favor of politically aligned actors; and administrative regulations that contradict legislative provisions and remain unchallenged.

5.2 Selective Rule Enforcement and Legal Weaponization

Legal instruments — criminal law, regulatory oversight, tax enforcement — are applied differentially depending on the political position of targeted actors. This mechanism, which Comaroff and Comaroff (2006) termed lawfare, transforms the legal system from a constraint on power into a resource of power. It operates through prosecutorial discretion, appointment of politically aligned judges, and manipulation of investigative agencies. Its observable signature is a statistically significant differential in enforcement outcomes between politically aligned and opposition-aligned actors for equivalent legal violations — a test that can be operationalized through public records analysis.

5.3 Deliberate Formal-Informal Norm Hybridization

Incumbents activate formal legal registers or customary normative registers selectively depending on which better serves immediate political objectives. In contexts characterized by legal pluralism — particularly post-colonial states where formal law and customary authority coexist as partially competing normative orders — this mechanism exploits the irreducibility of each register to the other. As Mamdani (1996) demonstrated, the bifurcated citizenship architecture of colonial states created permanent structural ambiguity between citizen and subject statuses; IND exploits this ambiguity rather than resolving it. Observable indicators include: appeals to customary authority to override constitutional provisions; claims of constitutional legality to override customary arrangements; and the absence of any consistent principle governing which register applies in which context.

5.4 Sequential Normative Layering

Each normative modification creates conditions that facilitate the next, producing a self-reinforcing sequence that progressively forecloses institutional alternatives. Thelen (1999) identified layering — the addition of new rules on top of existing ones that gradually displace the latter — as a central mechanism of incremental institutional change. IND deploys a weaponized variant: each layer not only displaces existing norms but specifically disables the institutional actors best positioned to check the next modification. Scheppele’s (2018) analysis of what she terms autocratic legalism in Hungary exemplifies this sequence with exceptional clarity: constitutional revision preceded judicial emasculation, which preceded electoral rule manipulation, each step creating enabling conditions for the next.

VI. STRUCTURAL CONSTRAINTS AND AGENCY

6.1 The Structuralist Challenge

The first version of IND attributed excessive strategic capacity to political elites, underweighting the macro-structural constraints documented in Bates (2008) and Herbst (2000). Bates demonstrated that African political economies are profoundly shaped by the distributional politics of export commodity dependence: rulers’ strategies reflect not unconstrained choice but the binding constraints imposed by revenue structures, ethnic coalition arithmetic, and international market integration. Herbst showed that the administrative geography of African states — low population density, vast territories, limited infrastructural reach — structurally inhibits the kind of centralized normative control that IND presupposes. These are genuine theoretical constraints on the concept’s application.

6.2 A Structural-Agential Interaction Model

We propose a structural-agential interaction model in which IND is understood as an elite strategy that is shaped, constrained, and partially determined by macro-structural conditions, rather than freely chosen. Three structural dimensions condition IND’s likelihood, form, and effectiveness.

Revenue structure: Following Bates (2008) and the rentier state literature (Beblawi & Luciani, 1987), regimes dependent on externally derived rents (oil, minerals, foreign aid) face weaker fiscal bargaining relationships with citizens and can sustain normative manipulation at lower political cost. Revenue-dependent states face a more significant trade-off between normative erosion and taxpayer legitimacy. IND is therefore more likely and more stable in rentier contexts, not because elites are more capable there but because structural constraints on manipulation are weaker.

Institutional inheritance: Colonial administrative architecture, as Herbst (2000) and Mamdani (1996) demonstrate, produces structural variation in the coherence and reach of formal legal orders. Post-colonial states with bifurcated legal systems (citizen law/customary law) provide structural opportunities for hybridization-based IND that are not available in contexts with historically unified legal orders. This is a structural condition, not a cultural one.

Coalition structure: Following Khan’s (2010) political settlements framework, the composition and stability of the ruling coalition determines the returns to normative manipulation. Wide coalitions with multiple powerful veto players face higher political costs for selective enforcement; narrow coalitions concentrating power in a small group reduce these costs. IND intensity is therefore partially explained by the structure of political settlements, independent of individual elite preferences.

This model does not dissolve agency into structure. It holds that within the space of strategies available to elites given structural constraints, IND represents a distinctive choice — one that can be distinguished from alternatives (revenue sharing, coercive repression, democratic competition) and that therefore requires an agent-centered explanation for why it is selected. But the space of available choices is itself structurally delimited.

VII. EMPIRICAL STRATEGY AND CASE LOGIC

7.1 High-IND Cases

Hungary under Viktor Orbán (2010–present) remains the most analytically tractable high-IND case in a formally democratic context. Scheppele’s (2018) forensic account and Halmai’s (2019) constitutional analysis permit precise process tracing: the Fundamental Law of 2011, the judicial reform law of 2011, the electoral law modifications of 2012, and the media regulation framework collectively exhibit all four IND mechanisms and satisfy all four scope conditions. Critically, the temporal clustering of these measures around post-2010 supermajority consolidation — not around any external shock requiring emergency legislation — provides congruence-test evidence of strategic intent. This is not merely democratic backsliding (Bermeo, 2016); it is backsliding achieved through the deliberate production of normative ambiguity that forecloses institutional reversal.

In West Africa, Togo under the Gnassingbé dynasty (1967–present) constitutes a high-IND case characterized predominantly by hybridization and layering mechanisms. Successive constitutional revisions — including the retroactively applied term-limit modifications of 2019 — exhibit clear temporal concentration around moments of political threat and the sequential internal logic characteristic of layering-based IND. The case avoids culturalist reduction by demonstrating that the same mechanisms are identifiable in structurally similar cases across different cultural contexts.

7.2 Intermediate Cases

Senegal represents a theoretically crucial intermediate case. The consolidation of Macky Sall’s power between 2012 and 2024 exhibited several IND markers: the selective prosecution of opposition figures (notably Khalifa Sall and Ousmane Sonko), the manipulation of the Constitutional Council during the February 2024 electoral crisis, and the use of anti-terrorist legislation against political opponents. Yet the robustness of Senegalese civil society, the partial independence of the judiciary, and the existence of regional and international accountability mechanisms limited IND’s systemic character. Crucially, the massive civic mobilization of 2023–2024 and the electoral defeat of the ruling coalition in March 2024 constitute a natural experiment testing IND’s scope conditions: counter-IND mechanisms functioned where SC2 (executive concentration) fell below the threshold required for IND to self-reinforce. This case confirms SC2 as a necessary condition.

7.3 Negative Cases: Ghana and Uruguay

Two negative cases demonstrate IND’s absence under conditions that would generate false positives in less-specified frameworks. Ghana post-2000 exhibits significant informal politics, clientelist redistribution, and normative hybridization in local governance — features that neopatrimonialism would code as constitutive of the syndrome. Yet Ghana fails SC3 (observable selectivity) and SC4 (temporal pattern): enforcement differentials are not clearly tied to political alignment, and normative modifications lack sequential internal logic. The absence of IND in Ghana, despite neopatrimonial features, supports the claim that IND is analytically distinct from neopatrimonialism.

Uruguay presents a harder negative case. Despite having a unified ruling coalition, moderate executive power, and an active civil society, it satisfies SC1 and partially SC2 — conditions that might predict IND. The near-absence of selective enforcement and the presence of a robust anti-corruption norm culture suggest that institutional inheritance and civil society density can override structural permissiveness. This case points toward a moderating variable — what we term normative density — that merits theorization in future work.

VIII. COUNTER-IND: A THEORY OF RESISTANCE TO STRATEGIC NORM DEGRADATION

8.1 Mechanisms of Counter-IND

Counter-IND refers to the constellation of actions, institutions, and configurations that interrupt, constrain, or reverse the process of strategic norm degradation. It operates through four analytically distinct mechanisms.

Judicial entrenchment: Independent courts — particularly constitutional courts with lifetime or long-term appointments — function as repositories of normative coherence that are structurally resistant to executive manipulation. Their effectiveness depends not only on formal independence but on what Hirschl (2004) terms juristocracy — the political conditions under which judicial actors acquire sufficient legitimacy and resources to resist executive pressure. The Hungarian Constitutional Court’s initial resistance to Orbán’s reforms before its reconstitution illustrates both the mechanism and its limits: judicial counter-IND is effective until it is itself subject to IND through court-packing or jurisdiction-stripping.

Civil society mobilization: Organized civic actors — professional associations, bar associations, independent media, academic institutions — constitute the primary extra-institutional check on IND. Their effectiveness depends on organizational density, financial independence, and access to international legitimacy resources. Ekeh’s (1975) analysis of the two publics in post-colonial African states is relevant here: civic resistance to IND operates more effectively through primordial publics (community-based organizations, religious institutions) when civic publics (formal civil society) are captured. Senegal 2023–2024 exemplifies this dynamic.

International accountability arenas: Regional integration organizations, international courts, donor conditionalities, and reputational markets (foreign investment, diaspora remittances) provide external checks that can raise the political cost of IND. Their effectiveness is conditioned by the strategic importance of the state to external actors: small states dependent on development aid face harder external constraints than resource-rich states with diversified external relationships. The comparative literature on democratic leverage (Levitsky & Way, 2010) maps this variation systematically.

Elite defection: IND depends on the cohesion of the ruling coalition. When coalition members calculate that the normative environment has become so degraded that their own positions are threatened — by unconstrained executive predation, by international reputational costs, or by opposition mobilization — internal defection can interrupt the self-reinforcing dynamic. Bratton and van de Walle’s (1994) analysis of political transitions as driven by intra-elite conflict is directly relevant: counter-IND sometimes originates within the incumbent coalition rather than outside it.

8.2 Conditions for Counter-IND Effectiveness

Counter-IND mechanisms are most effective when multiple channels operate simultaneously and when IND has not yet reached a self-reinforcing threshold — what we term the institutional point of no return. Beyond this threshold, the very institutions that would sustain counter-IND have themselves been subjected to IND, creating a lock-in dynamic. This threshold is analytically important: it suggests that the window for effective resistance is temporally bounded, consistent with Levitsky and Ziblatt’s (2018) observation that democratic defense must be proactive rather than reactive.

Table 2 summarizes the structural conditions favoring IND consolidation versus Counter-IND effectiveness.

Table 2: Structural Conditions for IND vs. Counter-IND

Dimension	Favors IND Consolidation	Favors Counter-IND
Revenue structure	Rentier/aid-dependent (weak fiscal bargain)	Tax-based revenue (citizen-state accountability)
Coalition width	Narrow, centralized coalition	Broad coalition with internal veto players
Judicial independence	Politically appointed; short terms	Long-tenured; self-selecting; supermajority appointment
Civil society density	Weak, fragmented, financially dependent on state	Dense, internationally networked, financially autonomous
International linkage	Low (geopolitical shield or resource wealth)	High (EU membership, aid conditionality, trade exposure)
IND stage	Advanced (institutions already degraded)	Early (institutional capacity still intact)

IX. THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS: BOUNDED CLAIMS

We make three theoretical claims that are analytically defensible. First, IND is a mechanism, not a regime type. It is present when all four scope conditions are satisfied and when process evidence satisfies the intentionality protocol. It is absent or inconclusive otherwise. This bounded claim prevents IND from becoming a label for any polity with governance deficits.

Second, IND is analytically distinct from neopatrimonialism but causally interrelated with it. Neopatrimonial configurations (SC2: executive concentration; weak fiscal bargaining) create structural conditions that lower the cost of IND. But IND is not co-extensive with neopatrimonialism: it requires in addition SC3 (observable selectivity) and SC4 (temporal pattern), which are not constitutive features of neopatrimonialism as defined by Médard (1991). The relationship is one of partial overlap and conditional facilitation, not identity.

Third, IND speaks to the contemporary literature on democratic backsliding and autocratic legalism by specifying a mechanism through which incremental norm erosion produces irreversible institutional transformation. Bermeo’s (2016) taxonomy of backsliding forms and Scheppele’s (2018) autocratic legalism describe the phenomenon at different levels of abstraction; IND provides a mechanism-level account of the process that generates these outcomes. This positioning as a mid-range mechanism — below regime typology and above individual behavioral accounts — is where the concept’s principal theoretical contribution lies.

X. CONCLUSION

Several limitations remain. The intentionality protocol, while methodologically defensible, remains demanding in empirical terms: full process tracing requires documentary evidence that is often unavailable in opaque regimes, precisely those most likely to exhibit IND. The concept of the institutional point of no return — the threshold beyond which IND becomes self-reinforcing — requires more precise operationalization than this article provides. And the moderating variable of normative density, suggested by the Uruguay case, constitutes a theoretical gap that future work should address.

The broader implications of the IND framework extend beyond the study of non-liberal regimes. In formally democratic systems experiencing what Levitsky and Ziblatt (2018) call democratic erosion from within, IND provides a mechanism-level account of how legal procedures can be weaponized to dismantle the normative substrates of democratic governance. Understanding this mechanism — and the conditions under which Counter-IND can interrupt it — constitutes one of the more consequential research programs available to comparative politics in the current period.

* * *

REFERENCES

Bates, R. H. (2008). When things fell apart: State failure in late-century Africa. Cambridge University Press.

Bayart, J.-F. (1989). L’État en Afrique : la politique du ventre. Fayard.

Beblawi, H., & Luciani, G. (Eds.). (1987). The rentier state. Croom Helm.

Bennett, A. (2010). Process tracing and causal inference. In H. Brady & D. Collier (Eds.), Rethinking social inquiry: Diverse tools, shared standards (2nd ed., pp. 207–220). Rowman & Littlefield.

Bermeo, N. (2016). On democratic backsliding. Journal of Democracy, 27(1), 5–19. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2016.0012

Bratton, M., & van de Walle, N. (1994). Neopatrimonial regimes and political transitions in Africa. World Politics, 46(4), 453–489.

Comaroff, J., & Comaroff, J. L. (2006). Law and disorder in the postcolony. University of Chicago Press.

Eisenstadt, S. N. (1973). Traditional patrimonialism and modern neopatrimonialism. Sage.

Ekeh, P. P. (1975). Colonialism and the two publics in Africa: A theoretical statement. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 17(1), 91–112.

Fukuyama, F. (2014). Political order and political decay. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Gallie, W. B. (1956). Essentially contested concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 56, 167–198.

George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. MIT Press.

Halmai, G. (2019). Illiberalism in East-Central Europe. European Law Journal, 25(1), 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/eulj.12314

Hellman, J. S., Jones, G., & Kaufmann, D. (2003). Seize the state, seize the day: State capture and influence in transition economies. Journal of Comparative Economics, 31(4), 751–773.

Helmke, G., & Levitsky, S. (2004). Informal institutions and comparative politics: A research agenda. Perspectives on Politics, 2(4), 725–740.

Herbst, J. (2000). States and power in Africa: Comparative lessons in authority and control. Princeton University Press.

Hirschl, R. (2004). Towards juristocracy: The origins and consequences of the new constitutionalism. Harvard University Press.

Huntington, S. P. (1968). Political order in changing societies. Yale University Press.

Khan, M. H. (2010). Political settlements and the governance of growth-enhancing institutions. DFID Research Paper.

Levitsky, S., & Way, L. A. (2010). Competitive authoritarianism: Hybrid regimes after the cold war. Cambridge University Press.

Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2018). How democracies die. Crown Publishers.

Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The science of muddling through. Public Administration Review, 19(2), 79–88.

Mahoney, J., & Goertz, G. (2006). A tale of two cultures: Contrasting quantitative and qualitative research. Political Analysis, 14(3), 227–249.

Mamdani, M. (1996). Citizen and subject: Contemporary Africa and the legacy of late colonialism. Princeton University Press.

Médard, J.-F. (1991). L’État néo-patrimonial en Afrique noire. In J.-F. Médard (Ed.), États d’Afrique noire (pp. 323–353). Karthala.

Munck, G. L. (2009). Measuring democracy: A bridge between scholarship and politics. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Przeworski, A., & Teune, H. (1970). The logic of comparative social inquiry. Wiley.

Sartori, G. (1970). Concept misformation in comparative politics. American Political Science Review, 64(4), 1033–1053. https://doi.org/10.2307/1958356

Scheppele, K. L. (2018). Autocratic legalism. University of Chicago Law Review, 85(2), 545–584.

Thelen, K. (1999). Historical institutionalism in comparative politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 2, 369–404.

Witt, M. A. (2019). De-globalization: Theories, predictions, and opportunities for international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 50(7), 1053–1077.