М.: РОССПЭН, 2003.
23
Zakaria F. The Rise of Illiberal Democracy // Foreign Affairs. 1997. Vol. 76. № 6. P. 22–43.
24
Хантингтон С. Третья волна; O’Donnell G., Schmitter P. Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Comparative Perspectives. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986; Schmitter P. Transitology: The Science or the Art of Democratization? // The Consolidation of Democracy in Latin America. Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1995. P. 11–41; Przeworski A. Transitions to Democracy // Democracy and the Market. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. P. 51–99.
25
Linz J., Stepan A. Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and Post-Communist Europe. Baltimore; London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996; Mainwaring S., O’ Donnell G., Valenzuela J. S. Issues in Democratic Consolidation: New South American Democracies in Comparative Perspective. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1992; Diamond L. Developing Democracy: Toward Consolidation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999.
26
Schimmelfennig F., Sedelmeie U. The Europeanization of Central and Eastern Europe. New York: Cornell University Press, 2005.
27
Levitz P., Pop-Eleches G. Why No Backsliding? // Comparative Political Studies. 2010. Vol. 43. № 4. P. 457–485.
28
Magyar B. Parallel System Narratives: Polish and Hungarian Regime Formations Compared // Stubborn Structures: Reconceptualizing Post-Communist Regimes. Budapest; New York: CEU Press, 2019. P. 611–655.
29
Collier D., Levitsky S. Democracy with Adjectives: Conceptual Innovation in Comparative Research // World Politics. 1997. Vol. 49. № 3. P. 430–451.
30
Пример метаанализа см.: Bogaards M. How to Classify Hybrid Regimes? Defective Democracy and Electoral Authoritarianism // Democratization. 2009. Vol. 16. № 2. P. 399–423.
31
Diamond L. Thinking About Hybrid Regimes.
32
Croissant A. From Transition to Defective Democracy: Mapping Asian Democratization // Democratization. 2004. Vol. 11. № 5. P. 156–178.
33
Bozóki A. Beyond «Illiberal Democracy»: The Case of Hungary // New Politics of Decisionism. Hague: Eleven International Publishing, 2019. P. 94–98.
34
Bozóki A., Hegedűs D. Democracy, Dictatorship and Hybrid Regimes.
35
Wigell M. Mapping «Hybrid Regimes»: Regime Types and Concepts in Comparative Politics // Democratization. 2008. Vol. 15. № 2. P. 230–250.
36
Gilbert L., Mohseni P. Beyond Authoritarianism: The Conceptualization of Hybrid Regimes // Studies in Comparative International Development. 2011. Vol. 46. № 3. P. 270.
37
Kornai J. The System Paradigm Revisited: Clarification and Additions in the Light Of Experiences in the Post-Communist Region // Stubborn Structures: Reconceptualizing Post-Communist Regimes. P. 21–74.
38
Ср.: Armony A., Schamis H. Babel in Democratization Studies // Journal of Democracy. 2005. Vol. 16. № 4. P. 113–128.
39
Dobson W. The Dictator’ s Learning Curve: Inside the Global Battle for Democracy. New York: Anchor, 2013.
40
Слово «общинный», выбранное для перевода третьего из типов социального действия, который в оригинале обозначается как communal, следует понимать в широком смысле – как относящийся к тесно связанному сообществу людей, разделяющих некий набор ценностей, культуру или идентичность. Нам хотелось бы избежать коннотаций, отсылающих к ограниченному числу конкретных инкарнаций общинных отношений, получивших название «община», таких, например, как крестьянская община. В понимании авторов социальное действие внутри семьи или дружеского круга также будет являться общинным (прим. пер.).
41
Offe C. Political Corruption: Conceptual and Practical Issues // Building a Trustworthy State in Post-Socialist Transition. Political Evolution and Institutional Change. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2004. P. 78.
42
North D., Wallis J., Weingas B. Violence and Social Orders: A Conceptual Framework for Interpreting Recorded Human History. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
43
Hale H. Patronal Politics: Eurasian Regime Dynamics in Comparative Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.
44
Hale H. Patronal Politics. P. 61–94.
45
Ibid.
46
Мадьяр Б. Анатомия посткоммунистического мафиозного государства: На примере Венгрии. М.: Новое литературное обозрение, 2016.
47
Hanson P., Teague E. Russian Political Capitalism and Its Environment // Varieties of Capitalism in Post-Communist Countries. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2007. P. 149–164.
48
Magyar B., Madlovics B. From petty corruption to criminal state: A critique of the corruption perceptions index as applied to the post-communist region. Intersections // East European Journal of Society and Politics. 2019. Vol. 5. № 2. P. 103–129.
49
Stefes C. H. Understanding Post-Soviet Transitions: Corruption, Collusion and Clientelism. New York: Springer, 2006; Klíma M. Informal Politics in Post-Communist Europe: Political Parties, Clientelism and State Capture. Milton: Routledge, 2019.
50
Bokros L. Hanyatlás [Упадок] // Élet És Irodalom. 2015. Vol. 59. № 1–2.
51
Snyder T. The Road to Unfreedom: Russia, Europe, America. New York: Tim Duggan Books, 2018; Motyl A. Putin’ s Russia as a Fascist Political System // Communist and Post-Communist Studies. 2016. Vol. 49. № 1. P. 25–36; Ungváry R. A láthatatlan valóság: A fasisztoid mutáció a mai Magyarországon [Невидимая реальность: Фашизоидная мутация в современной Венгрии]. Pozsony: Kalligram, 2014.
52
Inozemtsev V. Neo-Feudalism Explained // The American Interest. 01.03.2011. URL: https://www.the-american-interest.com/2011/03/01/neo-feudalism-explained/; Heller Á. Hungary: How Liberty Can Be Lost // Social Research: An International Quarterly. 2019. Vol. 86. № 1. P. 1–22; Shlapentokh V., Woods J. Contemporary Russia as a Feudal Society: A New Perspective on the Post-Soviet Era. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.
53
См.:
