Kelly M. McMann's work is a welcome addition to the burgeoning literature on democracy and democratization with the discussion of a new form of government, namely the hybrid regime. McMann uses a multidimensional approach to understand a complex and conceptually messy issue: democratic participation. Like other scholars, she uses this hybrid regime framework, which has been described as containing both democratic and authoritarian elements (e.g., see Larry J. Diamond, “Thinking about Hybrid Regimes,” Journal of Democracy 13 [April 2002]: 21–35). Her work is a significant contribution to the understanding of how formerly transitional governments currently operate in relation to citizens and citizen political participation. Utilizing the hybrid regime concept illustrates the true nature of such regimes to the same degree that the terms “electoral,” “minimal,” “illiberal” democracies and “transitional” regimes obfuscate it. Perhaps regimes such as those in Russia and Kyrgyzstan have completed their transitions—to some combination of democratic and authoritarian elements, rather than to liberal democracy.

McMann focuses on the role that economic autonomy as part of capitalism plays in an individual's ability to exercise his/her democratic rights through political participation, that is, by voting, running for political office, joining a political party, and the like. Economic autonomy is understood as the ability of an individual to earn and maintain a living independently of the state (p. 4). For many political scientists, including the author, capitalism as an economic system fosters individual freedom. This development is particularly important in formerly communist states that had command economies where economic autonomy did not exist.

McMann uses Robert Dahl's (1971) definition and measurement of democracy in Polyarchy, which includes eight guarantees: “alternative sources of information, the freedom to form and join organizations, eligibility for public office, the right of political leaders to compete for support, freedom of expression, the right to vote, free and fair elections, and institutions for making government policies depend on voters' preferences” (p. 45). she furthers Dahl's (1971) conceptualization by adding one dimension of analysis: the interaction of the components. For example, alternative sources of information impact the other components of democracy insofar as they enable citizens to obtain better information with which to make more informed decisions in voting. Informed voters, in turn, can improve the quality of their representation by voting for candidates who represent their interests. Thus, the need for an independent media is essential to the working of democracy.

This book is a comparative analysis of two cases in Russia—Samara oblast and Ul'ianovsk oblast—and two cases in Kyrgyzstan—Osh oblast and Naryn oblast. Samara oblast and Osh oblast serve as the more democratic and more economically autonomous cases, whereas Ul'ianovsk oblast and Naryn oblast serve as the less democratic and less economically autonomous cases. Rather than comparing Russia and Kyrgyzstan cross-nationally, McMann examines the uneven democratic development within each country by comparing Samara to Ul'ianovsk and Osh to Naryn. She choose to analyze two countries with different “institutional structures, socioeconomic levels and cultural heritages” in order to ensure that her theory is applicable to various settings (p. 11).

Using interviews of journalists, candidates for public office, and citizens, as well as observations of regional legislatures, content analysis of media reports, and socioeconomic and electoral statistics, McMann provides evidence of 1) the presence of relatively free and independent media in Samara and Osh and the lack thereof in Ul'ianovsk and Naryn, 2) how citizens are able to participate in politics with relative freedom in Samara and Osh in comparison to Ul'ianovsk and Naryn, and 3) how and why Samara and Osh as regions are more economically autonomous from their respective central governments, in comparison to Ul'ianovsk and Naryn. What is most impressive is how she skillfully integrates these components into a full and rich understanding of political life in these regions.

This book is a significant contribution to the ever-expanding literature on democratization, transition, and democracy. It contributes to the theoretical literature in political science in two ways. First, McMann focuses on why hybrid regimes have proliferated since the beginning of the third wave of democratization, which has received relatively little scholarly attention. Citing Atul Kohli (Democracy and Discontent: India's Growing Crisis of Governability, 1990), she argues that interventionist states become “economically powerful relative to their citizens” and thus limit economic autonomy (p. 177). This allows states to limit democracy in terms of the outcomes of the democratic process while still allowing citizens to participate (or at least feel as though they have the opportunity to participate). Her use of comparative analysis within Russia and Kyrgyzstan demonstrates the complex nature of democratization, and how and why one region of a country can be more democratic and experience greater economic autonomy while the situation is very different in another region in the same country.

Second, McMann provides guidance on how to facilitate further democratization of hybrid regimes. She asserts that certain components of democracy should occur before others, namely, the creation of civic institutions, which function best in an environment that allows for the economic autonomy of citizens. The assertion that some hybrid regimes may become democracies is in some ways both her greatest contribution but also the most controversial point. How to create democracies has been a core question of political science since its inception. It is possible that some hybrid regimes may develop into liberal democracies, but it is also possible that some of these regimes have completed their transitions. Beginning with Samuel Huntington's The Third Wave (1993), most early democratization literature suggested that “transition” meant that the end point would be some kind of democracy, which has been challenged by Thomas Carothers (“The End of the Transition Paradigm,” Journal of Democracy 13 [January 2002]: 5–21), and Steven Levitsky and Lucan A. Way (“The Rise of Competitive Authoritarianism,” Journal of Democracy 13 [April 2002]: 51–65), who assert that “transition” or “transitional” are not unidirectional.