The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Informal Institutions and Comparative Politics: A Research Agenda
Open accessAbstract
Mainstream comparative research on political institutions focuses primarily on formal rules. Yet in many contexts, informal institutions, ranging from bureaucratic and legislative norms to clientelism and patrimonialism, shape even more strongly political behavior and outcomes. Scholars who fail to consider these informal rules of the game risk missing many of the most important incentives and constraints that underlie political behavior. In this article we develop a framework for studying informal institutions and integrating them into comparative institutional analysis. The framework is based on a typology of four patterns of formal-informal institutional interaction: complementary, accommodating, competing, and substitutive. We then explore two issues largely ignored in the literature on this subject: the reasons and mechanisms behind the emergence of informal institutions, and the nature of their stability and change. Finally, we consider challenges in research on informal institutions, including issues of identification, measurement, and comparison.Gretchen Helmke's book Courts Under Constraints: Judges, Generals, and Presidents in Argentina, will be published by Cambridge University Press. Steven Levitsky is the author of Transforming Labor-Based Parties in Latin America: Argentine Peronism in Comparative Perspective and is currently writing a book on competitive authoritarian regimes in the post–Cold War era. The authors thank the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs at Harvard University and the Kellogg Institute for International Studies at the University of Notre Dame for generously sponsoring conferences on informal institutions. The authors also gratefully acknowledge comments from Jorge Domínguez, Anna Grzymala-Busse, Dennis Galvan, Goran Hyden, Jack Knight, Lisa Martin, Hillel Soifer, Benjamin Smith, Susan Stokes, María Victoria Murillo, and Kurt Weyland, as well as three anonymous reviewers and the editors of Perspectives on Politics.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Pahl-Wostl, C. (2009) · Global Environmental Change · doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.06.001 · Cited by 2,254
New Institutionalism Through a Gender Lens: Towards a Feminist Institutionalism?
Mackay, F., Kenny, M., & Chappell, L. (2010) · International Political Science Review · doi:10.1177/0192512110388788 · Cited by 738
International business responses to institutional voids
Doh, J., Rodrigues, S., Saka-Helmhout, A., & Makhija, M. (2017) · Journal of International Business Studies · doi:10.1057/s41267-017-0074-z · Cited by 596
From applying panaceas to mastering complexity: Toward adaptive water governance in river basins
Pahl-Wostl, C., Lebel, L., Knieper, C., & Nikitina, E. (2012) · Environmental Science & Policy · doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2012.07.014 · Cited by 479
The strength of weak states? Non-state security forces and hybrid governance in Africa
Meagher, K. (2012) · Development and Change · doi:10.1111/j.1467-7660.2012.01794.x · Cited by 346
Metadata
- Authors
- Helmke, G., & Levitsky, S.
- Venue
- Perspectives on Politics
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2004-12
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 04
- Pages
- 725-740
- ISSN
- 1537-5927 (ISSN-L)
- 1541-0986
- OpenAlex
- W2168283218
- Cited by
- 3,175
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 92.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Informal Institutions and Comparative Politics: A Research Agenda. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s1537592704040472
- The paper
- Helmke, G., & Levitsky, S. (2004). Informal Institutions and Comparative Politics: A Research Agenda. Perspectives on Politics. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1537592704040472
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.