Informal Institutions And Comparative Politics

In the article “Informal Institutions and Comparative Politics: A Research Agenda,” Gretchen Helmke and Steven Levitsky propose that informal institutions form as much or more importance in politics as formal institutions. Throughout the article Helmke and Levitsky provide us with similarities and comparisons of both institutions and a definition for each institution. According to both researchers, it is not possible to explain political performance without focusing on both institutions as we can sometimes view them as a cause and effect. For example, an informal institution might develop due to the inefficiency of a formal institution and vice versa. However, informal institutions might also present themselves when there are no other rules. Consequently, we were explained how to differ institutions and recognize the interaction between them (complementary, accommodating, competing and substitutive), why institutions are created and how they are created and changed. In the beginning of the article, readers are explained the importance of informal institutions and how this institutions can be distinguished from other institutions and non-institutions. Helmke and Levitsky begin by defining informal institutions as “socially shared rules, usually unwritten, …show more content…
As a reader, now I am able to distinguish formal and informal institutions and detect what form of informal institution is being performed. Understanding that the success of the U.S. Constitution is based on an informal institution and so was the corruption in Italy allows me to expand my knowledge in politics and how each country functions. One of the questions that I have not been able to answer is if informal institutions have existed for so long and are performed in a variety of countries, why did comparative researchers focus on informal institutions rather than