This conclusion presents some closing thoughts on the concepts covered in the preceding chapters of this book. The book explains the neopatrimonialism front, where the emphases are different. One benefit claimed for neopatrimonalism is that it attributes equal status for the purpose of analysis to informal structures and behaviour patterns, unlike the hybrid regimes approach, which allegedly treats informality as a deviation from formal rules and institutions rather than a different and equally legitimate logic of authority. Sebastian Schiek and Stephan Hensell chose to utilize the concept in their analysis of administrative reform and the role of the president in Kazakhstan, Geiss used it as a foil for his concept of a bureaucratic-developmental state. Schiek and Hensell make a similar argument with regard to Kazakhstan, showing that neopatrimonial logic has hindered the implementation of administrative reforms predicated on a more bureaucratic logic.