Regime Implications of Legislative Institutionalization in Post-Authoritarian Societies

Making a Case for Theory Development
  • Irina Khmelko


The paper discusses regime implications of legislative institutionalization in post-authoritarian societies. Specifically, it addresses the role of legislatures in the process of democratic transition and consolidation. It contributes to explaining roles of legislatures in post-authoritarian societies after they complete the process of legislative institutionalization and develop full institutional capacity. The paper makes a case for the importance of theory development to address the needs of post-authoritarian societies in their democratic pursuits. It builds on well-established theories of evolutionary and historic institutionalism and contributes to further development of these theories by offering an additional perspective – compassionate institutionalism.


Parliament democratic transition legislative institutionalization compassionate institutionalism regime transformation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Copeland, Gary W., and Samuel C. Patterson. 1994. Changing an Institutionalized System. In Parliaments in the Modern World: Changing Institutions, eds. Gary W. Copeland and Samuel C. Patterson, 151-160. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  2. Copeland, Gary W., and Samuel C. Patterson. 1998. Parliaments and Legislatures. In World Encyclopedia of Parliaments and Legislatures, ed. George T. Kurian. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Book.Google Scholar
  3. D’Anieri, Paul, Robert Kravchuk, and Taras Kuzio. 1999. Politics and Society in Ukraine. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  4. Huntington, Samuel P. 1965. Congressional Responses to the Twentieth Century. In Congress and America’s Future, ed. David B. Truman. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  5. Khmelko, Irina. 2015. Legislative Strengthening Programs in Ukraine. USAID Center for Democracy and Government.
  6. March, James G., and Johan P. Olsen. 1995. Democratic Governance. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  7. March, James G., and Johan P. Olsen. 1984. The New Institutionalism: Organizational Factors in Political Life. American Political Science Review 78 (3): 734-49.Google Scholar
  8. Olson, David, M. 1994. Democratic Legislative Institutions: A Comparative View. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  9. Olson, David M., and Philip Norton, eds. 1996. The New Parliaments of Central and Eastern Europe. London: Frank Class.Google Scholar
  10. Ostrow, Joel M. 2000. Comparing Post-Soviet Legislatures: A Theory of Institutional Design and Political Conflict. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Patzelt, Werner J. 2010. Parliamentary Institution Building by using Blueprints: The Case of former East Germany and its present State Parliaments. Paper presented at 2010 SPSA Annual Meeting, January 2010.
  12. Patzelt, Werner J. 2011. Connecting Theory and Practice of Legislative Institutionalization. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, January 2011.
  13. Polsby, Nelson W. 1990. Legislatures. In Legislatures, ed. Philip Norton, 129-148. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Remington, Thomas F., ed. 1994. Parliaments in Transition: The New Legislative Politics in the Former USSRE and Eastern Europe. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  15. Wise, Charlies R., Trevor L. Brown, and Vladimir Pigenko. 1999. Measuring Parliamentary Development: The Case of Ukraine’s National Parliament. Paper prepared for presentation at the Midwest Political Science Association Meetings, Chicago, IL, April 15-17.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Political Science & Public ServiceThe University of Tennessee ChattanoogaChattanoogaUSA

Personalised recommendations