Suchergebnisse

The article examines the modern authoritarian regime, considers its characteristics and manifestations. The author gives an overview of modern authoritarian regimes. The purpose of this article is to determine the nature and features of the authoritarian regime, as a kind of political regime, as well as the reasons that lead to its emergence or maintenance in the country. It is noted, that the authoritarian regime is not an evolutionary form of state development, it is always a logical consequence of the socio-political processes taking place in the country. It is noted, that it appears against the background of breakthrough processes, when the political system of the state needs changes, but these changes occur under the influence of the political elite, not society, which in turn allows us to identify the preconditions for an authoritarian regime in the state. It is stated, that the authoritarian regime is not an evolutionary form of state development, it does not provide high-quality succession of power, it is unable to offer new trends and transformations of public life due to the inability of one person to change their worldview, adapting to social demands and processes. It is noted, that most authoritarian countries do not proclaim, do not identify themselves in this way, but on the contrary try to position themselves as countries that promote democratic values. Authoritarian regime as such is not perceived by most countries in the world, as it is characterized by unstable, non-transparent and unpredictable development of socio-economic and socio-political processes. The dominance of liberal democracy in the tradition of economic relations demonstrates the tendency of socio-political preferences of most business elites to operate in the conditions of projected democratic regimes. It is concluded, that the authoritarian regime is based on the imperative planting of those values that will contribute to the maintenance of power, and therefore dominated by state ideology, which is planted by the forces and ...

Two recent events had a tangible impact on Lithuanian textile and apparel industry. First of them was Lithuanian EU membership and entrance to the single market, the second one being the final abolition of quantitative restrictions in the sector from the beginning of 2005. The outcomes of the first event are less significant as tariffs in trade with the EU were removed in line with the bilateral free trade agreement concluded long before Lithuanian EU membership. The EU membership resulted in more changes in the trade regime with the third countries. Before membership Lithuania applied only a few restrictions while the EU common trade policy envisaged the application of both quantitative restrictions and tariffs. A more tangible impact on Lithuanian textile and apparel industry had the abolition of quotas which affected to a less extent Lithuanian market and to a larger extent the EU market where 90% of Lithuanian sector exports are supplied. The purpose of the article was to explore the situation in the sector after these two major events, to identify the problems and to disclose the prospects for the development of the sector in the light of new challenges and to look for the possibilities to increase and diversify the sector's exports. Lithuania is one of the EU countries most specialized in the textile and apparel sector. In 2004, the sector produced 13.8% of manufacturing value added and exported 11.6% of the total Lithuanian exports. 63% of the sector's exports are apparel exports. 80% of the sector's output is assigned for export. The abolition of quantitative restrictions and application of low tariffs for textile and apparel products for imports from third countries have caused severe problems in competition with imports from China and other countries of cheap labour. The textile subsector was growing steadily until 2003, however, since January 2005, when quotas were abolished, textile outputs are shrinking.

Two recent events had a tangible impact on Lithuanian textile and apparel industry. First of them was Lithuanian EU membership and entrance to the single market, the second one being the final abolition of quantitative restrictions in the sector from the beginning of 2005. The outcomes of the first event are less significant as tariffs in trade with the EU were removed in line with the bilateral free trade agreement concluded long before Lithuanian EU membership. The EU membership resulted in more changes in the trade regime with the third countries. Before membership Lithuania applied only a few restrictions while the EU common trade policy envisaged the application of both quantitative restrictions and tariffs. A more tangible impact on Lithuanian textile and apparel industry had the abolition of quotas which affected to a less extent Lithuanian market and to a larger extent the EU market where 90% of Lithuanian sector exports are supplied. The purpose of the article was to explore the situation in the sector after these two major events, to identify the problems and to disclose the prospects for the development of the sector in the light of new challenges and to look for the possibilities to increase and diversify the sector's exports. Lithuania is one of the EU countries most specialized in the textile and apparel sector. In 2004, the sector produced 13.8% of manufacturing value added and exported 11.6% of the total Lithuanian exports. 63% of the sector's exports are apparel exports. 80% of the sector's output is assigned for export. The abolition of quantitative restrictions and application of low tariffs for textile and apparel products for imports from third countries have caused severe problems in competition with imports from China and other countries of cheap labour. The textile subsector was growing steadily until 2003, however, since January 2005, when quotas were abolished, textile outputs are shrinking.

Two recent events had a tangible impact on Lithuanian textile and apparel industry. First of them was Lithuanian EU membership and entrance to the single market, the second one being the final abolition of quantitative restrictions in the sector from the beginning of 2005. The outcomes of the first event are less significant as tariffs in trade with the EU were removed in line with the bilateral free trade agreement concluded long before Lithuanian EU membership. The EU membership resulted in more changes in the trade regime with the third countries. Before membership Lithuania applied only a few restrictions while the EU common trade policy envisaged the application of both quantitative restrictions and tariffs. A more tangible impact on Lithuanian textile and apparel industry had the abolition of quotas which affected to a less extent Lithuanian market and to a larger extent the EU market where 90% of Lithuanian sector exports are supplied. The purpose of the article was to explore the situation in the sector after these two major events, to identify the problems and to disclose the prospects for the development of the sector in the light of new challenges and to look for the possibilities to increase and diversify the sector's exports. Lithuania is one of the EU countries most specialized in the textile and apparel sector. In 2004, the sector produced 13.8% of manufacturing value added and exported 11.6% of the total Lithuanian exports. 63% of the sector's exports are apparel exports. 80% of the sector's output is assigned for export. The abolition of quantitative restrictions and application of low tariffs for textile and apparel products for imports from third countries have caused severe problems in competition with imports from China and other countries of cheap labour. The textile subsector was growing steadily until 2003, however, since January 2005, when quotas were abolished, textile outputs are shrinking.

Two recent events had a tangible impact on Lithuanian textile and apparel industry. First of them was Lithuanian EU membership and entrance to the single market, the second one being the final abolition of quantitative restrictions in the sector from the beginning of 2005. The outcomes of the first event are less significant as tariffs in trade with the EU were removed in line with the bilateral free trade agreement concluded long before Lithuanian EU membership. The EU membership resulted in more changes in the trade regime with the third countries. Before membership Lithuania applied only a few restrictions while the EU common trade policy envisaged the application of both quantitative restrictions and tariffs. A more tangible impact on Lithuanian textile and apparel industry had the abolition of quotas which affected to a less extent Lithuanian market and to a larger extent the EU market where 90% of Lithuanian sector exports are supplied. The purpose of the article was to explore the situation in the sector after these two major events, to identify the problems and to disclose the prospects for the development of the sector in the light of new challenges and to look for the possibilities to increase and diversify the sector's exports. Lithuania is one of the EU countries most specialized in the textile and apparel sector. In 2004, the sector produced 13.8% of manufacturing value added and exported 11.6% of the total Lithuanian exports. 63% of the sector's exports are apparel exports. 80% of the sector's output is assigned for export. The abolition of quantitative restrictions and application of low tariffs for textile and apparel products for imports from third countries have caused severe problems in competition with imports from China and other countries of cheap labour. The textile subsector was growing steadily until 2003, however, since January 2005, when quotas were abolished, textile outputs are shrinking.

There is a discussion of global Post Kyoto climate change problem and elements of its protection. There is an analysis of world suggestions for Post Kyoto climate change. There is analysis of Post Kyoto climate change mitigation regimes for Lithuania. There is performed SWOT analysis of climate change politics in different economics sectors. Dinamics of greenhouse gases in different sectors is provided. According to structural model of the work it was investigated that climate change investigation methods till 2020 will minimize the emissions of GHGs 20% or 30% comparing with 1990 will double the prices of electricity and the growth of GDP will be less 2%- 3%. These things affirm the hypothesis of the work. The best means for climate change mitigation should be applied in the sector of energy: the saving of Energy, the use of recommense reserves in technology; the inovation and modernisation of technologies. The use of recommense reserves for the producing of energy would have positive influence for the economy of Lithuania despite the fact of growing prices of eletricity.

There is a discussion of global Post Kyoto climate change problem and elements of its protection. There is an analysis of world suggestions for Post Kyoto climate change. There is analysis of Post Kyoto climate change mitigation regimes for Lithuania. There is performed SWOT analysis of climate change politics in different economics sectors. Dinamics of greenhouse gases in different sectors is provided. According to structural model of the work it was investigated that climate change investigation methods till 2020 will minimize the emissions of GHGs 20% or 30% comparing with 1990 will double the prices of electricity and the growth of GDP will be less 2%- 3%. These things affirm the hypothesis of the work. The best means for climate change mitigation should be applied in the sector of energy: the saving of Energy, the use of recommense reserves in technology; the inovation and modernisation of technologies. The use of recommense reserves for the producing of energy would have positive influence for the economy of Lithuania despite the fact of growing prices of eletricity.

Political systems doesn't limit government enforcement mode. Adoption of political regime implies its implementation into legitimacy. Definition of political regime and its enforcement is a very important issue for every single state. The analysis of regime implied into legitimacy of particular state helps us understand political process and political ruling. The actuality of this theme mostly relies on the analysis of states' political regime and its development through historical, political and national changes. Object of this work is political regimes, and its aim - to analyse political regimes that exists in world. Main tasks given – to analyse and systematically present main state governing forms, fully analyse concept of political regimes, to present its' differentiations and forms, also – to provide two empirical research: to analyse the impact of development of political regime in Lithuania, analysing its Constitutions in XX century and to analyse three various political regimes – ones existing in USA, Belarus and North Korea. States might be divided into republics and monarchies. Republics – presidential (representative) or direct democracy. Analysing republics by constitutional approach it may be also divided into parliamentary or presidential governing forms. Though mixed forms also exists. States, relying on theoretical approach and governing form may be also distinguished: unitary, federation and confederation. The governing regime depends on constitutional background that sets state's government. Political regime – methods of governing. They may be distinguished: normative, economical political, cultural, social or mixed. But mostly these regimes are distinguished into democratic or nondemocratic. Nondemocratic are also distinguished into authoritarian and totalitarian. Development of political regime mostly depends on the states' historical development, traditions, values, geopolitics or political leader. After analysing Lithuanian XX c. Constitutions, we conclude, that political regime developed from democratic to authoritarian, and nowadays – it's again democracy, that was established in the 1922 years' Constitution (with exceptions also in 1928), changed to authoritarian governing in 1938 and restored after Independency (1992). Three different foreign political regimes let us to conclude, that USA is a presenter of fundamental constitutionalism, Belarus is a state, that though has constitution but its' regime is authoritarian, and North Korea has totalitarian political regime. Master thesis consists of introduction, four parts, conclusions, list of used literature and summaries, in Lithuanian and English.

Political systems doesn't limit government enforcement mode. Adoption of political regime implies its implementation into legitimacy. Definition of political regime and its enforcement is a very important issue for every single state. The analysis of regime implied into legitimacy of particular state helps us understand political process and political ruling. The actuality of this theme mostly relies on the analysis of states' political regime and its development through historical, political and national changes. Object of this work is political regimes, and its aim - to analyse political regimes that exists in world. Main tasks given – to analyse and systematically present main state governing forms, fully analyse concept of political regimes, to present its' differentiations and forms, also – to provide two empirical research: to analyse the impact of development of political regime in Lithuania, analysing its Constitutions in XX century and to analyse three various political regimes – ones existing in USA, Belarus and North Korea. States might be divided into republics and monarchies. Republics – presidential (representative) or direct democracy. Analysing republics by constitutional approach it may be also divided into parliamentary or presidential governing forms. Though mixed forms also exists. States, relying on theoretical approach and governing form may be also distinguished: unitary, federation and confederation. The governing regime depends on constitutional background that sets state's government. Political regime – methods of governing. They may be distinguished: normative, economical political, cultural, social or mixed. But mostly these regimes are distinguished into democratic or nondemocratic. Nondemocratic are also distinguished into authoritarian and totalitarian. Development of political regime mostly depends on the states' historical development, traditions, values, geopolitics or political leader. After analysing Lithuanian XX c. Constitutions, we conclude, that political regime developed from democratic to authoritarian, and nowadays – it's again democracy, that was established in the 1922 years' Constitution (with exceptions also in 1928), changed to authoritarian governing in 1938 and restored after Independency (1992). Three different foreign political regimes let us to conclude, that USA is a presenter of fundamental constitutionalism, Belarus is a state, that though has constitution but its' regime is authoritarian, and North Korea has totalitarian political regime. Master thesis consists of introduction, four parts, conclusions, list of used literature and summaries, in Lithuanian and English.

Was investigated features of legitimize communist regimes. On the basis of the practice of institutional changes in the measurement of the constitution concluded that the instability of the legal framework and arrogant attitude to the rules of the political actors regimes condemns ongoing process delegitimize. Furthermore, foundations eroded the value of post-communist transformation. Emphasized that to overcome the syndrome of permanent delegitimize should rely more on formal institutions and rules. Emphasized that to overcome the syndrome of permanent delegitimize should rely more on formal institutions and rules. ; Рассмотрены особенности легитимации посткоммунистических режимов. На основании анализа практики институциональных изменений в измерении конституирования сделан вывод о том, что нестабильность правовой базы и пренебрежительное отношение к правилам игры со стороны политических акторов обрекает режими на постоянный процесс делегитимации. Кроме того, размываются ценностные основы посткоммунистической трансформации. Подчеркнуто, что для преодоления постоянного синдрома делегитимации надо больше опираться на формальные институты и правила. ; Розглянуто особливості легітимації посткомуністичних режимів. На підставі аналізу практики інституціональних змін у вимірі конституювання зроблено висновок, що нестабільність правової бази та зверхнє ставлення до правил гри з боку політичних акторів прирікає режими на постійний процес делегітимації. Крім того, розмиваються ціннісні основи посткомуністичної трансформації. Підкреслено, що для подолання постійного синдрому делегітимації слід більше спиратися на формальні інститути і правила.

The main problem of this thesis is the ability of the international regime theory to explain the international regime to solve the climate change problem. The object of this thesis is the international regime theory and its explanation of the international climate change negotiations. The purpose of this thesis is to test the neorealistic and neoliberalistic international regime formation theories on the case of global climate change negotiations. The research is being carried out on the basis of two main assumptions: firstly, that United States of America is the hegemon of international system; such position was especially revealed at the beginning of the last decade of XX century, when Soviet Union collapsed and the Cold War ended. These events coincided with the first attempts to form an international regime to solve the climate change problem. It is assumed that only USA – the hegemon – had the ability and power to form such a regime. Secondly, the need to form such a regime arose because the essential problem was identified – global climate change. Since this problem will be negatively affecting the well-being of the all states around the world, it is their common interest to reduce its destructive consequences. During the research the definition of an international regime, created by Stephen Krasner and modified by the Tübingen research team, was used to identify the global climate change negotiations as an international regime. This regime was established in February, 2005, when the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change came into force. When discussing for the Kyoto protocol, the negotiation positions of the states were in conflict on means to tackle the climate change problem most often. But when discussing for the extension of the climate change regime (for the new period of commitments of the states to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere of the Earth), the conflict on means was overwhelmed by the conflict of interest about relatively assessed goods. All of the main state-actors were relating their actions to the policy of their opponents. In the context of climate change problem, the amount of carbon dioxide emitted per year is being measured as power. The more emissions, the greater power and influence a state has. It was found out that USA was a clear hegemon in terms of military, economic and carbon dioxide emissions in the last decade of the XX century. But at the second part of the first decade of the XXI century, economic hegemony of this state has diminished, while climate change related hegemony has dissolved. During the course of analysis in this thesis two hypotheses were formulated. Hegemonic stability one: USA, possessing hegemonic relative and climate change related power in the international system, having an interest to form an international regime to solve the climate problem, determines the formation and functioning of such a regime. Problem-structural one: conflict of negotiation positions of states about means to tackle the climate change problem determines medium regime-conduciveness, while conflict of negotiation positions of states about relatively assessed goods determines low regime-conduciveness. When tested on the case of climate change negotiations, the former hypothesis is rejected, while the latter is confirmed. The problem-structural hypothesis is additionally tested on the case of the ozone layer protection regime, thus consolidating the explanatory power of the problem-structural model. That does not imply that the variable of power should not be considered in international regimes. The role of state power is very important, but does not explain the formation and functioning of regimes alone.

The main problem of this thesis is the ability of the international regime theory to explain the international regime to solve the climate change problem. The object of this thesis is the international regime theory and its explanation of the international climate change negotiations. The purpose of this thesis is to test the neorealistic and neoliberalistic international regime formation theories on the case of global climate change negotiations. The research is being carried out on the basis of two main assumptions: firstly, that United States of America is the hegemon of international system; such position was especially revealed at the beginning of the last decade of XX century, when Soviet Union collapsed and the Cold War ended. These events coincided with the first attempts to form an international regime to solve the climate change problem. It is assumed that only USA – the hegemon – had the ability and power to form such a regime. Secondly, the need to form such a regime arose because the essential problem was identified – global climate change. Since this problem will be negatively affecting the well-being of the all states around the world, it is their common interest to reduce its destructive consequences. During the research the definition of an international regime, created by Stephen Krasner and modified by the Tübingen research team, was used to identify the global climate change negotiations as an international regime. This regime was established in February, 2005, when the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change came into force. When discussing for the Kyoto protocol, the negotiation positions of the states were in conflict on means to tackle the climate change problem most often. But when discussing for the extension of the climate change regime (for the new period of commitments of the states to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere of the Earth), the conflict on means was overwhelmed by the conflict of interest about relatively assessed goods. All of the main state-actors were relating their actions to the policy of their opponents. In the context of climate change problem, the amount of carbon dioxide emitted per year is being measured as power. The more emissions, the greater power and influence a state has. It was found out that USA was a clear hegemon in terms of military, economic and carbon dioxide emissions in the last decade of the XX century. But at the second part of the first decade of the XXI century, economic hegemony of this state has diminished, while climate change related hegemony has dissolved. During the course of analysis in this thesis two hypotheses were formulated. Hegemonic stability one: USA, possessing hegemonic relative and climate change related power in the international system, having an interest to form an international regime to solve the climate problem, determines the formation and functioning of such a regime. Problem-structural one: conflict of negotiation positions of states about means to tackle the climate change problem determines medium regime-conduciveness, while conflict of negotiation positions of states about relatively assessed goods determines low regime-conduciveness. When tested on the case of climate change negotiations, the former hypothesis is rejected, while the latter is confirmed. The problem-structural hypothesis is additionally tested on the case of the ozone layer protection regime, thus consolidating the explanatory power of the problem-structural model. That does not imply that the variable of power should not be considered in international regimes. The role of state power is very important, but does not explain the formation and functioning of regimes alone.

The main problem of this thesis is the ability of the international regime theory to explain the international regime to solve the climate change problem. The object of this thesis is the international regime theory and its explanation of the international climate change negotiations. The purpose of this thesis is to test the neorealistic and neoliberalistic international regime formation theories on the case of global climate change negotiations. The research is being carried out on the basis of two main assumptions: firstly, that United States of America is the hegemon of international system; such position was especially revealed at the beginning of the last decade of XX century, when Soviet Union collapsed and the Cold War ended. These events coincided with the first attempts to form an international regime to solve the climate change problem. It is assumed that only USA – the hegemon – had the ability and power to form such a regime. Secondly, the need to form such a regime arose because the essential problem was identified – global climate change. Since this problem will be negatively affecting the well-being of the all states around the world, it is their common interest to reduce its destructive consequences. During the research the definition of an international regime, created by Stephen Krasner and modified by the Tübingen research team, was used to identify the global climate change negotiations as an international regime. This regime was established in February, 2005, when the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change came into force. When discussing for the Kyoto protocol, the negotiation positions of the states were in conflict on means to tackle the climate change problem most often. But when discussing for the extension of the climate change regime (for the new period of commitments of the states to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere of the Earth), the conflict on means was overwhelmed by the conflict of interest about relatively assessed goods. All of the main state-actors were relating their actions to the policy of their opponents. In the context of climate change problem, the amount of carbon dioxide emitted per year is being measured as power. The more emissions, the greater power and influence a state has. It was found out that USA was a clear hegemon in terms of military, economic and carbon dioxide emissions in the last decade of the XX century. But at the second part of the first decade of the XXI century, economic hegemony of this state has diminished, while climate change related hegemony has dissolved. During the course of analysis in this thesis two hypotheses were formulated. Hegemonic stability one: USA, possessing hegemonic relative and climate change related power in the international system, having an interest to form an international regime to solve the climate problem, determines the formation and functioning of such a regime. Problem-structural one: conflict of negotiation positions of states about means to tackle the climate change problem determines medium regime-conduciveness, while conflict of negotiation positions of states about relatively assessed goods determines low regime-conduciveness. When tested on the case of climate change negotiations, the former hypothesis is rejected, while the latter is confirmed. The problem-structural hypothesis is additionally tested on the case of the ozone layer protection regime, thus consolidating the explanatory power of the problem-structural model. That does not imply that the variable of power should not be considered in international regimes. The role of state power is very important, but does not explain the formation and functioning of regimes alone.

The main problem of this thesis is the ability of the international regime theory to explain the international regime to solve the climate change problem. The object of this thesis is the international regime theory and its explanation of the international climate change negotiations. The purpose of this thesis is to test the neorealistic and neoliberalistic international regime formation theories on the case of global climate change negotiations. The research is being carried out on the basis of two main assumptions: firstly, that United States of America is the hegemon of international system; such position was especially revealed at the beginning of the last decade of XX century, when Soviet Union collapsed and the Cold War ended. These events coincided with the first attempts to form an international regime to solve the climate change problem. It is assumed that only USA – the hegemon – had the ability and power to form such a regime. Secondly, the need to form such a regime arose because the essential problem was identified – global climate change. Since this problem will be negatively affecting the well-being of the all states around the world, it is their common interest to reduce its destructive consequences. During the research the definition of an international regime, created by Stephen Krasner and modified by the Tübingen research team, was used to identify the global climate change negotiations as an international regime. This regime was established in February, 2005, when the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change came into force. When discussing for the Kyoto protocol, the negotiation positions of the states were in conflict on means to tackle the climate change problem most often. But when discussing for the extension of the climate change regime (for the new period of commitments of the states to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere of the Earth), the conflict on means was overwhelmed by the conflict of interest about relatively assessed goods. All of the main state-actors were relating their actions to the policy of their opponents. In the context of climate change problem, the amount of carbon dioxide emitted per year is being measured as power. The more emissions, the greater power and influence a state has. It was found out that USA was a clear hegemon in terms of military, economic and carbon dioxide emissions in the last decade of the XX century. But at the second part of the first decade of the XXI century, economic hegemony of this state has diminished, while climate change related hegemony has dissolved. During the course of analysis in this thesis two hypotheses were formulated. Hegemonic stability one: USA, possessing hegemonic relative and climate change related power in the international system, having an interest to form an international regime to solve the climate problem, determines the formation and functioning of such a regime. Problem-structural one: conflict of negotiation positions of states about means to tackle the climate change problem determines medium regime-conduciveness, while conflict of negotiation positions of states about relatively assessed goods determines low regime-conduciveness. When tested on the case of climate change negotiations, the former hypothesis is rejected, while the latter is confirmed. The problem-structural hypothesis is additionally tested on the case of the ozone layer protection regime, thus consolidating the explanatory power of the problem-structural model. That does not imply that the variable of power should not be considered in international regimes. The role of state power is very important, but does not explain the formation and functioning of regimes alone.

Was investigated features of legitimize communist regimes. On the basis of the practice of institutional changes in the measurement of the constitution concluded that the instability of the legal framework and arrogant attitude to the rules of the political actors regimes condemns ongoing process delegitimize. Furthermore, foundations eroded the value of post-communist transformation. Emphasized that to overcome the syndrome of permanent delegitimize should rely more on formal institutions and rules. Emphasized that to overcome the syndrome of permanent delegitimize should rely more on formal institutions and rules. ; Рассмотрены особенности легитимации посткоммунистических режимов. На основании анализа практики институциональных изменений в измерении конституирования сделан вывод о том, что нестабильность правовой базы и пренебрежительное отношение к правилам игры со стороны политических акторов обрекает режими на постоянный процесс делегитимации. Кроме того, размываются ценностные основы посткоммунистической трансформации. Подчеркнуто, что для преодоления постоянного синдрома делегитимации надо больше опираться на формальные институты и правила. ; Розглянуто особливості легітимації посткомуністичних режимів. На підставі аналізу практики інституціональних змін у вимірі конституювання зроблено висновок, що нестабільність правової бази та зверхнє ставлення до правил гри з боку політичних акторів прирікає режими на постійний процес делегітимації. Крім того, розмиваються ціннісні основи посткомуністичної трансформації. Підкреслено, що для подолання постійного синдрому делегітимації слід більше спиратися на формальні інститути і правила.