The Vagueness of Transformation Studies: The need for conceptual and methodological corrections

This paper considers the appropriate inclusion of informal rules and practices in the conceptual foundations of democracy research, such as typologies and institutional design, and the methodological consequences of this proposal. From a political science perspective, transition research has focused strongly on the transformation of formal institutions. Thus, the transition stage of institutionalization refers primarily to corresponding formal institutions such as the constitution, elections, political parties, separation of powers and the system of government. In contrast, little attention has been paid to the informal regulatory environment with which the new formal institutions had to contend. This analysis, however, falls short of the mark because the functioning of formal institutions can only be understood in conjunction with informal rules, both positive and negative. In this way, they can undermine or support the functioning of democratic institutions. It is therefore necessary to test and adapt the typological proposals. After the conceptual remarks, the methodological implications need to be discussed. When we have been confronted with discussions of crises of democracy in recent years, we have noticed that the extent of the crises described often corresponds only to a limited extent with the results of regime or democracy measurements. Weaknesses in democracy become clearer when concepts of the consolidation of democracy are used that also include findings on political culture. In addition to this possibility, it is necessary to clarify which methodological and methodological approach is best suited to adequately include the informal world of rules in research. This research strategy is also relevant for an adequate analysis of the current crisis of democracy.