ABSTRACT Institutions are the formal and informal rules that govern social, political, and economic life. In post‐colonial contexts, indigenous/local institutions coexist and evolve alongside liberal‐imported ones, sometimes gaining formal recognition and leading to institutional hybridity. This article aims to examine how liberal and hybrid formal institutions differ in their rules for leadership selection and decision‐making, and to explore the practical implications of hybridity in terms of bureaucracy and legitimacy. The research reveals that hybrids are intricate systems that accommodate dual normative frameworks, adding procedural layers, timelines, and administrative requirements. Yet, while being more complex and bureaucratic, they are also more legitimate.
Jimena Avejera Udaeta (Wed,) studied this question.