The article surveys and discusses different definitions of regime type in Ukraine and whether they provide a sound understanding of the regime emerging in Ukraine and other CIS states since the late 1990s. Ukraine and the CIS witnessed democratic regression and therefore could not be assumed that they were on a ‘transition’ path to a consolidated democracy. The majority of CIS states have either already moved to fully authoritarian regimes, such as Russia. Or, like Ukraine, they remained as unstable competitive authoritarian regimes which exhibited a ‘hybrid’ fusion of the former Soviet system and the emerging reformed economy and polity. Ukraine’s oligarchs during Kuchma’s second term preferred a fully authoritarian regime but they were also divided among themselves and faced a formidable opposition. These factors blocked the creation of a fully authoritarian regime under Kuchma and led to the victory of the opposition through Ukraine’s Orange Revolution.

Corporatism has been an influential doctrine in the Slovenian polity since its beginning. After the onset of democratization in the early 1990s, its influence remains strong. Forms of corporatism are embodied in the National Council as the second chamber of parliament, in the chamber system, the system of social partnership and the RTVS (Public Television of Slovenia) Council. It is also present in certain socio-political priorities such as a higher value being placed on partnership over competition, on fairness over human rights, on community over individualism. Social pluralism has always been a part of Slovenian public life. Political pluralism emerged at the end of the 19th century and was never fully developed. There has always been a strong inclination in the political life of Slovenia to organize around interest groups and editorial boards of various publications, a tendency that reveals a plurality of voices but a general unwillingness to fight for political power. It could also be concluded that the development of pluralism in Slovenia relies heavily on corporatism because of the general lack of liberal foundations.

This article explores the changes in organisation around labour and women’s issues in China. It is argued that whilst the two fields of organisation share common features, they have also evolved in distinct ways, reflecting the relative salience of gender and labour issues and the approach of non-governmental women’s and labour groups towards the Party-state. This focus on women’s and labour groups provides more general insights into the emergence of civil societies, public spheres and corporatism in China. In particular, the contradictory implications of the divergent evolutionary paths of labour and women’s groups underline the need to think in terms of increasingly complex and fluid processes of interest intermediation.