Andere Kunden interessierten sich auch für
![Emerging Diplomatic Elites in Post-Communist Europe]( "Emerging Diplomatic Elites in Post-Communist Europe")
Emerging Diplomatic Elites in Post-Communist Europe51,99 €![Post-Communist Economic Societies]( "Post-Communist Economic Societies")
Post-Communist Economic Societies32,99 €![The Rules of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union]( "The Rules of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union")
The Rules of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union37,99 €![Communist Party of Czechoslovakia]( "Communist Party of Czechoslovakia")
Communist Party of Czechoslovakia29,99 €![Communist Terrorism]( "Communist Terrorism")
Communist Terrorism22,99 €![Anti-Chinese Attitudes in Post-Communist Mongolia]( "Anti-Chinese Attitudes in Post-Communist Mongolia")
Anti-Chinese Attitudes in Post-Communist Mongolia32,99 €![Communist Party of the Russian Federation]( "Communist Party of the Russian Federation")
Communist Party of the Russian Federation19,99 €
The paper will explore whether high level of
institutionalization is conditioned by the existence
of informal networks and clientelism, to compare the
party system of Armenia with the party system of
Kyrgyzstan, specify the level of institutionalization
and discover the reasons of different levels, the
similarities and differences of the system. How do
party politics operate differently in these
countries? Why is it that countries with so many
similarities (strong informal network, clientelist
relations) have different institutional levels of
party system? Therefore, it is a puzzle whether
institutionalization of party system matters in those
countries. If not, what is it that matters in the
party and political systems of Armenia and
Kyrgyzstan? I will also specify what factors
assisted those two countries in the
institutionalization of their party system, what
criteria should be taken into consideration for
measuring the level of party system
institutionalization.
institutionalization is conditioned by the existence
of informal networks and clientelism, to compare the
party system of Armenia with the party system of
Kyrgyzstan, specify the level of institutionalization
and discover the reasons of different levels, the
similarities and differences of the system. How do
party politics operate differently in these
countries? Why is it that countries with so many
similarities (strong informal network, clientelist
relations) have different institutional levels of
party system? Therefore, it is a puzzle whether
institutionalization of party system matters in those
countries. If not, what is it that matters in the
party and political systems of Armenia and
Kyrgyzstan? I will also specify what factors
assisted those two countries in the
institutionalization of their party system, what
criteria should be taken into consideration for
measuring the level of party system
institutionalization.