"After the Orange Revolution, it was supposed by many that the change to liberallyminded, western-oriented leaders and the reduction of the presidential powers would be sufficient to guarantee Ukraine's transition to democracy. However, this proved to be wrong. A change of institutional design in Ukraine led indeed to less authoritarianism, as well as to free and fair elections and freedom of speech. But, as the post-revolutionary experience has shown – informal rules do matter in Ukraine. The formal framework only limits the scope of action, but the actors are not guided in their behaviour exceptionally by the formal rules. Thus, Ukraine was and remains a neo-patrimonial state, with both formal and informal logics of action. In order fully to understand the political change in Ukraine after the Orange Revolution, one should not limit the whole explanatory strength solely to the formal institutions. The model proposed in this article, consisting of such variables as formal and informal resources as well as actors' expectations, should help in understanding the scope of political change in Ukraine since 2005. "

Support: Digital;Paper