politicalscienceВестник РГГУ. Серия “Политология. История. Международные отношения.”RSUH/RGGU Bulletin Series "Political Science. History. International Relations"2073-6339Издательский центр Российского государственного гуманитарного университета10.28995/2073-6339-2026-3-52-68politicalscience-1033Research ArticleТЕОРИЯ И МЕТОДОЛОГИЯ ПОЛИТИЧЕСКОЙ НАУКИTHEORY AND METHODOLOGY OF POLITICAL SCIENCEНеопатримониальный тренд как тенденция современного политического развитияThe neopatrimonial trend as the main vector of modern political developmentЧайкоИ. В.СhaikoI. V.

Игорь В. Чайко, кандидат политических наук, доцент

129226, Москва, ул. Вильгельма Пика, д. 4/1

Igor V. Сhaiko, Cand. of Sci (Political Science), associate professor

4/1, Wilhelm Peak St., Moscow, 129226

ivchaiko@mail.ruРоссийский государственный социальный университетРоссияRussian State Social UniversityRussian Federation202603082026035268Copyright © Чайко И.В., 20262026Чайко И.В.Сhaiko I.V.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://politicalscience.rsuh.ru/jour/article/view/1033

Основная цель статьи состоит в обосновании тезисов о том, что наблюдаемые в современном мире демократический спад, рост авторитарного популизма и усиление позиций правых партий и движений являются проявлениями единого неопатримониального тренда, пришедшего на смену демократической «волне» конца XX в. Причиной этих тенденций является общий кризис западной либеральной демократии, который носит системный характер и связан, прежде всего, с эрозией рационально-правовых институтов современного административного государства. Об актуальности данных проблем свидетельствует, в частности, снижение уровня доверия населения западных стран к своим правительствам, что способствует усилению политической поляризации и внутренней нестабильности. Противоположная ситуация наблюдается в ведущих государствах группы БРИКС, нередко характеризуемых как неопатримониальные «государства развития». Все это определило новизну и актуальность данного исследования, в рамках которого автор осуществил сравнительный анализ политических процессов, происходящих сегодня в странах исторического Запада и ряде государств «незападного» мира, интегрированных в составе международного объединения БРИКС. В качестве эмпирической базы использованы данные Всемирного банка и других международных организаций, а также ежегодные доклады о состоянии демократии в мире, публикуемые рядом исследовательских центров. В итоге сделаны общие выводы о глобальном характере современной неопатримониальной «волны», охватившей в начале XXI в. различные страны планеты независимо от специфики их политических систем и характера существующих политических режимов.

The main purpose of this article is to prove that the democratic decline in the modern world and the rise of authoritarian populism are caused by the strengthening of a single neo-patrimonial trend that replaced the democratic “wave” of the 1990s. The reason for this trend is the crisis of Western liberal democracy, which is systemic in nature and is associated with the erosion of rational and legal institutions of the modern administrative state. Such attitudes determined the novelty and relevance of this study, in which the author carried out a comparative analysis of the political processes taking place today in the countries of the historical West and a number of states of the “nonWestern” world integrated into the international BRICS association. The empirical basis of the study was made up of data from the World Bank and other international organizations, as well as annual reports on the state of democracy in the world published by a number of research centers. As a result, the author came to the conclusion about the global nature of the modern neo-patrimonial “wave” that swept through various countries of the world at the beginning of the 21st century, regardless of the specifics of their political systems and the nature of political regimes.

либерализмавторитарный популизмрейтинги демократииполитическая поляризациядемократический спададминистративное государствоконсерватизмтрадиционализмнеопатримониальный трендперспективы развитияliberalismauthoritarian populismratings of democracypolitical polarizationdemocratic declineadministrative stateconservatismtraditionalismneopatrimonial trenddevelopment prospectsReferencesАлексеенкова 2024 – Алексеенкова Е.С. Закат популизма? Кризис доверия и партии политической альтернативы в современной Италии // Полис. Политические исследования. 2024. № 4. С. 119–134. DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2024.04.09Alekseenkova, E.S. (2024), “Decline of populism? The crisis of trust and the political alternative parties in modern Italy”, Polis. Political Studies, no. 4. pp. 119–134, https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2024.04.09.Масловский 1995 – Масловский М.В. Веберовская концепция патримониализма и ее современные интерпретации // Социологический журнал. 1995. № 2. С. 95–109.Carothers, T. (2002), “The end of the transition paradigm”, Journal of Democracy, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 5–21.Чайко 2013 – Чайко И.В. Проблемы исследования режимных трансформаций, или неопатримониальная альтернатива транзитологии // Политическая концептология: журнал метадисциплинарных исследований. 2013. № 1. С. 131–143.Chaiko, I.V. (2013) “Problems of regime transformation research, or a neopatrimonial alternative to transitology”, Politicheskaya kontseptologiya: zhurnal metadistsiplinarnykh issledovanii, no. 1. pp. 131–143.Carothers 2002 – Carothers T. The end of the transition paradigm // Journal of Democracy. 2002. Vol. 13. No. 1. P. 5–21.Crook, R. (1989), “Patrimonialism, administrative effectiveness and economic development in Côte d’Ivoire”, African Affairs, vol. 88, no. 351, pp. 205–228.Crook 1989 – Crook R. Patrimonialism, administrative effectiveness and economic development in Côte d’Ivoire // African Affairs. 1989. Vol. 88. No. 351. P. 205–228.Diamond, L. (2015), “Facing up to the democratic recession”, Journal of Democracy, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 141–155. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2015.0009Diamond 2015 – Diamond L. Facing up to the democratic recession // Journal of Democracy. 2015. Vol. 26. No. 1. P. 141–155. DOI: 10.1353/jod.2015.0009Eisenstadt, S.N. (1973), Traditional patrimonialism and modern neopatrominialism, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA, USA. (Studies in comparative modernization series; Sage research papers in social sciences)Eisenstadt 1973 – Eisenstadt S.N. Traditional patrimonialism and modern neopatrominialism. L.; Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1973. 95 p. (Studies in comparative modernization series; Sage research papers in social sciences)Evans, P. (2004), “Development as institutional change: The pitfalls of monocropping and the potentials of deliberation studies”, Comparative International Development, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 30–52, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02686327Evans 2004 – Evans P. Development as institutional change: The pitfalls of monocropping and the potentials of deliberation studies // Comparative International Development. 2004. Vol. 38. No. 4. P. 30–52. DOI: 10.1007/BF02686327Hanson, S.E. and Kopstein, J.S. (2021), “Understanding the global patrimonial wave”, Perspectives on Politics, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 1–13, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592721001195Hanson, Kopstein 2021 – Hanson S.E., Kopstein J.S. Understanding the global patrimonial wave // Perspectives on Politics. 2021. Vol. 20. No. 1. P. 1–13. DOI: 10.1017/S1537592721001195Heeger, G.A. (1974), The politics of underdevelopment, St. Martin’s Press, New York, USA, Palgrave Macmillan, London, UK.Heeger 1974 – Heeger G.A. The politics of underdevelopment. N.Y.: St. Martin’s Press; L.: Macmillan, 1974. 150 p.Hout, W. (2016), “Classical approaches to development: Modernisation and dependency”, in Grugel, J. and Hammett, D., eds., The Palgrave handbook of international development, Palgrave Macmillan, London, UK, pp. 21–39.Hout 2016 – 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.Huntington, S.P. (1991), The third wave: Democratization in the late twentieth century, Norman, London, UK.Huntington 1991 – Huntington S.P. The third wave: Democratization in the late twentieth century. L.: Norman, 1991. 366 p.Jackson, R.H. and Rosberg, C. (1982), Personal rule in Black Africa: Prince, autocrat, prophet, tyrant, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, USA.Jackson, Rosberg 1982 – Jackson R.H., Rosberg C.G. Personal rule in Black Africa: Prince, autocrat, prophet, tyrant. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982. 316 p.Kelsall, T. (2011), “Rethinking the relationship between neopatrimonialism and economic development in Africa”, Institute of Development Studies Bulletin, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 76–87, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1759-5436.2011.00213.xKelsall 2011 – Kelsall T. Rethinking the relationship between neopatrimonialism and economic development in Africa // Institute of Development Studies Bulletin. 2011. Vol. 42. No. 2. P. 76–87. DOI: 10.1111/j.1759-5436.2011.00213.xLakner, C. and Milanovic, B. (2015), “Global income distribution: From the fall of the Berlin wall to the Great recession”, Revista de Economía Institucional, vol. 17, no. 32, pp. 71–128, https://doi.org/10.1093/wber/lhv039Lakner, Milanovic 2015 – Lakner C., Milanovic B. Global income distribution: From the fall of the Berlin wall to the Great recession // Revista de Economía Institucional. 2015. Vol. 17. No. 32. P. 71–128. DOI: 10.1093/wber/lhv039Lemarchand, R. and Legg, K. (1972), “Political clientelism and development: A preliminary analysis”, Comparative Politics, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 149–178.Lemarchand, Legg 1972 – Lemarchand R., Legg K. Political clientelism and development: A preliminary analysis // Comparative Politics. 1972. Vol. 4. No. 2. P. 149–178. DOI: 10.2307/421508Levitsky, S. and Ziblatt, D. (2018), How democracies die, Viking, London, UK.Levitsky, Ziblatt 2018 – Levitsky S., Ziblatt D. How democracies die. L.: Viking, 2018. 301 p.Linz, J. and Stepan, A. (1996), “Toward consolidated democracies”, Journal of Democracy, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 14–33.Linz, Stepan 1996 – Linz J., Stepan A. Toward consolidated democracies // Journal of Democracy. 1996. Vol. 7. No. 2. P. 14–33.Maslovskii, M.V. (1995), “The Weberian concept of patrimonialism and its modern interpretations”, Sotsiologicheskii zhurnal, no. 2, pp. 95–109.Médard 1996 – Médard J.-F. Patrimonialism, patrimonialization, neopatrimonialism 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, no. 17. Roskilde: Roskilde University, 1996. P. 76–97.Médard, J.-F. (1996), “Patrimonialism, patrimonialization, neopatrimonialism and the study of the post-colonial state in Subsaharian Africa”, in Marcussen, H.S., ed., Improved natural ressources management: the role of formal organizations and informal Networks and institutions, Occasional paper, no. 17, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark, pp. 76–97.Mudde 2004 – Mudde C. The populist zeitgeist // Government and Opposition. 2004. Vol. 39. No. 4. P. 541–563. DOI: 10.1111/j.1477-7053.2004.00135.xMudde, C. (2004), “The populist zeitgeist”, Government and Opposition, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 541–563, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-7053.2004.00135.xO’Donnell, Schmitter 1986 – Transitions from authoritarian rule: Tentative conclusions about uncertain democracies / ed. by G. O’Donnell, Ph.C. Schmitter. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986. 81 p.O’Donnell, G. and Schmitter, Ph.C., ed. (1986), Transitions from authoritarian rule: Tentative conclusions about uncertain democracies, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.Piketty et al. 2018 – Piketty E., Saez T., Zucman G. Distributional national accounts: Methods and estimates for the United States // Quarterly Journal of Economics. 2018. Vol. 133. No. 2. P. 553–609. DOI: 10.1093/qje/qjx043Piketty, E., Saez, T. and Zucman, G. (2018), “Distributional national accounts: Methods and estimates for the United States”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 133, no. 2, pp. 553–609, https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjx043Roth 1968 – Roth G. Personal rulership, patrimonialism, and empire building in the new states // World Politics. 1968. Vol. 20. No. 2. P. 194–206. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2009795Roth, G. (1968), “Personal rulership, patrimonialism, and empire building in the new states”, World Politics, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 194–206, https://doi.org/10.2307/2009795Sandbrook 1985 – Sandbrook R. The politics of Africa’s stagnation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. 180 p.Sandbrook, R. (1985), The politics of Africa’s stagnation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Weber 1968 – Weber M. Economy and society. An outline of interpretive sociology. N.Y.: Bedminster Press, 1968. 1469 p.Weber, M. (1968), Economy and society. An outline of interpretive sociology, Bedminster Press, New York, USA.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.