The concept of regime is often preceded by a spatial adjective—international, national, or urban, for example—that refers to the area over which it has jurisdiction and can be used to refer to all manner of substantive remits over which it has control—development, environment, labor, trade, and so on. A more-detailed definition documents the means through which an institution forms. The emphasis is on the principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures around which the expectations of individual actors (normally governments) converge and are institutionalized. Uses of the regime concept often involve an association with a specific individual, ideology approach or political project (e.g., a neoliberal regime). In theory, the term need not imply anything about the particular government to which it relates, and most social scientists use it in a normative and neutral manner. The term, though, can be used in a political context. It is used colloquially by some, such as government officials, media journalists, and policy makers, when referring to governments that they believe are repressive, undemocratic, or illegitimate or simply do not square with the person’s own view of the world. Used in this context, the concept of regime communicates a sense of ideological or moral disapproval or political opposition. Regime change thus refers to the overthrow of a government considered illegitimate by an external force and its replacement with a new government according to the ideas or interests promoted by that force.