Party politics in Georgia and Ukraine and the failure of Western assistance

Bibliography

• ARD, Inc. Democracy and Governance Assessment of Georgia. Washington, DC: ARD, Inc., 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Barca, Peter, Elehie Natalie Skoczylas, and Jeson Ingraham. Transforming Elections in Ukraine. An Assessment of Progress Made in Elections Administration and the Challenges Ahead. Arlington, VA: Development Associates, 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Basedau, Matthias, and Alexander Stroh. ‘Measuring Party Institutionalisation in Developing Countries: A New Research Instrument Applied to 28 African Political Parties’, Working Paper No. 69. Hamburg: GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies, 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Birch, Sarah. ‘The Parliamentary Elections in Ukraine, March 2002’. Electoral Studies 22, no. 3 (September 2003): 524–31.
   Google Scholar
• Black, David, Susan Jay, and Michael Keshishian. USAID/Caucasus/Georgia Civil Society Assessment. Burlington, VT: 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Carothers, Thomas. Confronting the Weakest Link: Aiding Political Parties in New Democracies. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Carothers, Thomas. ‘Stepping Back From Democratic Pessimism’, Carnegie Paper no. 99. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Carson, Thomas P. ‘Attitudes toward Change, the Current Situation, and Civic Action in Ukraine’. Paper prepared for the International Foundation for Electoral Systems, Kyiv, 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Croissant, Aurel. Electoral Politics in Southeast and East Asia: A Comparative Perspective. Singapore: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, 2002.
   Google Scholar
• D'Anieri, Paul. Understanding Ukrainian Politics. Power, Politics, and Institutional Design. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Doherty, Ivan. ‘Promoting Democracy in Difficult Settings’. Paper presented at CEPPS Roundtable, Washington, DC, 29 April 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Dolidze, Valerian. ‘Political Parties and Party Development in Georgia’. Central Asia and the Caucasus 2 (2005): 49–59.
   Google Scholar
• Elgie, Robert. ‘Variations on a Theme’. Journal of Democracy 16, no. 3 (July 2005): 98–112.
   Google Scholar
• Fish, M. Steven. Democracy Derailed in Russia: The Failure of Open Politics. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Geddes, Barbara. ‘Why Parties and Elections in Authoritarian Regimes?’. Revised version of a paper prepared for presentation at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, 2005 (2006).
   Google Scholar
• Gel'man, Vladimir. ‘Party Politics in Russia: From Competition to Hierarchy’. Europe-Asia Studies 60, no. 6 (August 2008): 913–30.
   Google Scholar
• Greene, Kenneth F. ‘Creating Competition: Patronage Politics and the PRI's Demise’, Working Paper No. 345. Notre Dame, Kellogg Institute for International Studies, The Kellogg Institute Working Papers, 2007.
   Google Scholar
• International Republican Institute. Ukraine Work Plan 2006. Washington, DC: International Republican Institute, 2005.
   Google Scholar
• International Republican Institute, The Gallup Organisation and IPM, ‘Georgian National Voter Study’, USAID, Baltic Surveys. International Republican Institute, The Gallup Organisation, IPM, 2007. http://www.iri.org/eurasia/georgia/pdfs/2007-05-09-Georgia-Poll3.pdf (accessed December 18, 2009).
   Google Scholar
• Ishiyama, John T., and Ryan Kennedy. ‘Superpresidentialism and Political Party Development in Russia, Ukraine, Armenia and Kyrgyzstan’. Europe-Asia Studies 53, no. 8 (2001): 1177–91.
   Google Scholar
• King, Charles. ‘Potemkin Democracy. Four Myths about Post-Soviet Georgia’. The National Interest 64 (Summer 2001): 93–104.
   Google Scholar
• Kitschelt, Herbert, and Regina Smyth. ‘Programmatic Party Cohesion in Emerging Postcommunist Democracies: Russia in Comparative Context’. Comparative Political Studies 35 (2002): 1228–56.
   Google Scholar
• Konrad Adenauer Stiftung. International Parteienzusammenarbeit der KAS. Globales Engagement für Frieden und Demokratie. Berlin: Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Kubicek, Paul. ‘The Limits of Electoral Democracy in Ukraine’. Democratization 8, no. 2 (Summer 2001): 117–39.
   Google Scholar
• Kubicek, Paul. ‘Problems of Post-post-communism: Ukraine after the Orange Revolution’. Democratization 16, no. 2 (April 2009): 323–43.
   Google Scholar
• Lane, Jan E., and Svante Ersson. ‘Party System Instability in Europe: Persistent Differences in Volatility between West and East?’ Democratization 14, no. 1 (February 2007): 92–110.
   Google Scholar
• Mitchell, Lincoln A. Uncertain Democracy. U.S. Foreign Policy and Georgia's Rose Revolution. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008.
   Google Scholar
• National Democratic Institute. USAID Workplan Georgia August 1, 2001–July 31, 2002. Washington, DC: National Democratic Institute, 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Nelson, Sue, and Brian Katulis. Armenia Political Party Assessment. Washington, DC: United States Agency for International Development, 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy. A Framework for Democratic Party-Building. The Hague: Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy, 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Nodia, Ghia, and Álvaro Pinto Scholtbach. The Political Landscape of Georgia. Delft: Eburon Academic Publishers, 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Riabchuk, Mykola. ‘Ukraine: Lessons Learned from Other Postcommunist Transitions’. Orbis 52, no. 1 (Winter 2008): 41–64.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts, Sean R. Evaluation of the National Democratic Institute (NDI) in Kyrgyzstan, February 23–March 10, 2001. Washington, DC, 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Romaniuk, Anatolii, and Yurii Shveda. Partii ta Elektoralna Politika. Lviv: Astrolyabiya, 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Sanchez, Omar. ‘Transformation and Decay: the De-Institutionalisation of Party Systems in South America’. Third World Quarterly 29, no. 2 (March 2008): 315–37.
   Google Scholar
• Saxer, Marc. ‘Parteiförderung als Element der Demokratieförderung’. Berlin, 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Shugart, Matthew S. ‘The Inverse Relationship Between Party Strength and Executive Strength: A Theory of Politicians’ Constitutional Choices'. British Journal of Political Science 28 (1998): 1–29.
   Google Scholar
• Shugart, Matthew S. ‘Semi-Presidential Systems: Dual Executive and Mixed Authority Patterns’, Working Paper. San Diego: Graduate School of International Relations and Pacific Studies, University of California, 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Slomczynski, Kazimierz M., Goldie Shabad, and Jakub Zielinski. ‘Fluid Party Systems, Electoral Rules and Accountability of Legislators in Emerging Democracies: The Case of Ukraine’. Party Politics 14, no. 1 (2008): 91–112.
   Google Scholar
• Strom, Kaare. ‘A Behavioral Theory of Competitive Political Parties’. American Journal of Political Science 34, no. 2 (1990): 565–98.
   Google Scholar
• Tarkhan-Mouravi, Giorgi. ‘Politicheskie Partii v Gruzii. Zatiunuvsheesia Stanovlenie’. Political Science Quarterly 1 (2006): 243–67.
   Google Scholar
• Topolyanskiy, Aleksandr. ‘Nukonets. Partiia Yushchenko tikho umiraet’. INTV, March 3, 2009, http://www.intv-inter.net/ru/news/study/?id=57761747.
   Google Scholar
• Ufen, Andreas. ‘Political Party and Party System Institutionalisation in Southeast Asia: A Comparison of Indonesia, the Philippines, and Thailand’, GIGA Working Papers No. 44. Hamburg: German Institute of Global and Area Studies, 2007.
   Google Scholar
• United States Agency for International Development. Political Party Development Assistance. Washington, DC: USAID, 1999.
   Google Scholar
• United States Agency for International Development. USAID Political Party Assistance Policy. Washington, DC: USAID, 2003.
   Google Scholar
• United States Agency for International Development. OECD/DAC Peer Review of the United States. Washington, DC: USAID, 2006.
   Google Scholar
• United States Agency for International Development. A Study of Political Party Assistance in Eastern Europe and Eurasia. Washington, DC: USAID, 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Usupashvili, David. ‘An Analysis of the Presidential and Parliamentary Elections in Georgia: A Case Study, November 2003–March 2004’. Election Assessment in the South Caucasus, 75–100. Stockholm: IDEA, 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Van Zon, Hans. ‘Neo-Patrimonialism as an Impediment to Economic Development: The Case of Ukraine’. The Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics 17, no. 3 (September 2001): 71–95.
   Google Scholar
• Verheije, Marga, André Krouwel, Dessy Gavrilova, and Theo van Koolwijk. Van partij naar partij: Nederlandse ondersteuning van politieke partijen in Europese landen in transitie. Evaluatie Matra Politieke Partijen Programma 2000–2005. Wormerveer, 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Way, Lucan. ‘Kuchma's Failed Authoritarianism’. Journal of Democracy 16, no. 2 (2005): 131–45.
   Google Scholar
• Wheatley, Jonathan. Georgia from National Awakening to Rose Revolution: Delayed Transition in the Former Soviet Union. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, Andrew. ‘Ukraine's New Virtual Politics’. East European Constitutional Review 10 (2001): 60–8.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, Andrew, and Artur Bilous. ‘Political Parties in Ukraine’. Europe-Asia Studies 45, no. 4 (1993): 693–703.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, Andrew, and Sarah Birch. ‘Political Parties in Ukraine. Virtual and Representational. In Political Parties in New Democracies’, in Trajectories of Development and Implications for Democracy, ed. Paul Webb and Stephen White, 53–84. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Wolinetz, Steven B. ‘Beyond the Catch-All Party: Approaches to the Study of Parties and Party Organisation in Contemporary Democracies’, in Political Parties. Old Concepts and New Challenges, ed. Richard Gunther, José Ramón Montero, and Juan J. Linz, 136–65. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
   Google Scholar