IMPORTANT NOTE: DON'T CHEAT. DON'T PLAGIARIZE. Notes and Papers are shared here for reference and for studying. Footnote as appropriate.
BONUS LINK: My entire (so far) grad school notes collection can be found here.
Notes on Patrimonialism in Africa (Theobald, Bach, Pitcher and Moran)
Embedded and pasted below are notes on patrimonialism and neopatrimonialism from the following three articles:
Robin Theobald, “Patrimonialism,” WorldPolitics 34, 4 (July, 1982), 548-559
Definitions:
Patrimonialism is a form of governance in which all
power flows directly from the leader. Essentially, this constitutes the
blending of the public and private sector. These regimes are autocratic or
oligarchic and exclude the upper and middle classes from power. The leaders of
these countries typically enjoy absolute personal power. Usually, the armies of
these countries are loyal to the leader, not the nation. They maintain power through the use of political
favors in what is characterized as a “patron-client relationship”
Neopatrimonialism is a term used for patrons using state
resources in order to secure the loyalty of clients in the general population,
and is indicative of informal patron-client relationships that can reach from
very high up in state structures down to individuals in say, small villages.
“Patrimonialism” –
Robin Theobald
The author describes the prevalence of
patrimonialism in present society (1982).
She argues that it is very common.
She further argues that some states are merely patrimonial societies
that exist as “private instruments of those powerful enough to rule,” and
labels the Thai government as an example of this belief. (pg 549). Theobald goes on to state that patrimonialism
may be ideal for the development of certain nations. King Hassan II of Morocco achieved a monopoly
over political appointments by continuously bribing or providing favors to
opposition groups in order to hold on to his position.
The author goes on to state that the
prevalence for patrimonialism dwindles when a nation becomes more
industrialized at which point affluence can be attained by methods other than
“who you know,” and more along the lines of “what you know.” Examples of modern patrimonialism include
Kennedy appointing long-time friends to governmental positions or Obama using
federal funds to support Solyndra after their campaign contribution. In effect, the author is NOT stating that
patrimonialism is bad, only that it exists everywhere (in some locations it is
merely less obvious).
Theobald references a Riordan Roetts
study of Brazil and notes that the only way a minority party has maintained its
political control is through the delving out of public employment positions,
the use of resources on the construction projects of favorable associates,
and/or the exchange of substantive favors.
The main threat to a patrimonial state is the mobilization of the urban
sector that receives no favors from the president/sultan/king. She argues that ALL societies are patrimonial
to some extent, as a side effect of bureaucracy. 3rd world countries are most
often associated with patrimonialism because its presence is considerably more
overt/obvious. (pg 553) The article goes
on to list Mali, Indonesia, Congo, and Egypt as examples of nations that are
characterized as “patrimonial.”
Theobald finishes by stating “the consolidation of modern state
power was indissolubly linked with the expansion of trade and the diffusion of
capitalism.”(pg 556) A patrimonial
bureaucracy thus is the administrative instrument of an underdeveloped economy
with limited trade and a large subsistence sector. The limited penetration of
commercial transactions in such an economy constitutes a serious impediment to
the appropriation of resources by the center, and hence to the development of
an efficient "modern" administration.” (pg 557)
Basically,
patrimonialism is the only way for a country to develop itself when there is no
good method for taxing the public and using tax revenues to develop the nation.
“Patrimonialism
and neopatrimonialism: comparative trajectories and readings” – Daniel C. Bach
(2011)
Article addresses neopatrimonialism’s
prevalence in the politics of Africa.
Cameroon was the first nation to apply
neopatrimonialism (in the 1970s) as a means of combating
“underdevelopment.” The author notes
that Cameroon, in the 1970s, was an authoritarian state, with President Ahidjo
staying in power through “monopolistic control over the state” and using his
position as “a source of opportunities for family, friends and clients.” (p
276)
The article goes on to further
delineate patrimonialism from neopatrimonialism by stating something very
similar to the definitions at the beginning of this document. He goes on to add that neopatrimonialism,
unlike traditional patrimonialism, exists with bureaucratic systems and at
least a pretense of legal/rational state governmental legitimacy. (pg 277)
Bach
then distinguishes between two extremes of neopatrimonialism. Both forms undercut ethics but one seeks
mutual accommodation to advance development (while still allowing the political
elites to hold on to power)
1. Regulated neopatrimonialism –a somewhat
regulated form whereby public space and public policy is still an important
aspect of the society. (examples include Kenya in the 1960-70s & Cote
d'lvoire from 1960-93)
2. Predatory neopatrimonialism – a form in which
the political elite primarily seek personal wealth and results in a failure of
institutionalization and eventually the state (also called cronyism or
kleptocracy) (examples include Uganda in the 1970s and Nigeria 1983-98)
The author believes that neopatrimonial
states are weak, interfere with markets, depend on foreign powers (and foreign
aid), and tend to be repressive and anti-developmental. (pg 281) Indeed this belief was furthered by actions
of Mobutu in Nigeria where the elites of the neopatrimonial state were chiefly
bent 'on maintaining power and on privatizing public resources for personal
gain or gain by [their] ethnic community.
Latin America, South East Asia and
post-Communist European States are compared to Africa in their prevalence for
neopatrimonialism. The term “neopatrimonialism”
was first coined when describing the authoritarian regimes in Brazil and
Argentina in the latter half of the 20th century. The difference between Africa and Latin
America was that African cases sometimes had more developmentally focused
(regulated neopatrimonialism) that wasn’t seeking the total breakdown of
institutionalism (dissolving the department of public works, education, health,
etc). Indonesia, under General Suharto
(1967-98) was more of a regulated neopatrimonial state while the Philippines
were more of a predatory neopatrimonial state.
Russia, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan are further examples of predatory
patrimonialism that hindered institutional development.
In conclusion, the author states that
neopatrimonialism can be beneficial but is most often associated with
anti-developmental practices as it
hinders the free-markets and promotion of social/public goods and services.
Rethinking
Patrimonialism and Neopatrimonialism in Africa - Anne Pitcher, Mary H. Moran,
and Michael Johnston (2009)
Article addresses neopatrimonialism as
an often-misunderstood term that is improperly applied to numerous governments.
Weber described patrimonialism as a way
that a ruler could establish legitimate authority by securing compliance from
his subjects. It was not a form of
corruption or even an indicator of a weak state. It was merely a specific form of authority
and source of legitimacy stemming from a societies’ allegiance to an individual
(versus the office, such as the office of the president or allegiance to uphold
the constitution)
The authors argue that patrimonialism
is incorrectly used to describe both regimes and numerous types of authority
(even democracies). Patrimonial
legitimacy derives its force from the voluntary compliance of subjects with
domination by their rulers, which is very different from the domination
deployed against slaves, and even from the threat of joblessness used against
free workers in industrial capitalist countries. Patrimonialism is a significant element of
the most industrialized nations today, “without undermining democratic
processes or economic development.” (pg 3) Additionally, patrimonialism does
not lead to neopatrimonialism or vice versa.
Both forms exist and form independent of each other.
Many
nations in Africa were prone to patrimonial rule due to ancestral
practices. Symbolic traditions, such as
the transfer of power from a hunted panther to a new chief through the chief’s
consumption of the killed panther, created an environment where rulers were
both revered and feared in a paternal relationship with society. The father would forgive while the chief
would punish. (See example of pg 4 of
the document)
“Ironically, while patrimonialism is
said to cement social bonds in small-scale situations through a reliance on
trust, reciprocity, and material exchanges, it is believed to distort power,
corrupt authority, and fuel personal aggrandizement when it permeates larger
political institutions such as bureaucracies and states.” (pg 6) Unfortunately, patrimonialism and
neopatrimonialism is applied too frequently when describing leaders, regimes,
and systems that have poor leadership or undergo economic stagnation. This has resulted in scholar labeling every
African state as patrimonial or neopatrimonial at one time or another, a gross
miscalculation in the authors view.
“Underdeveloped states typically have
bureaucracies in which individuals rely on public office to secure private gain
because such states lack the institutional arrangements necessary to provide a
consistent source of revenue to the state.
Without a stable revenue stream with which to pay its officials, the
state fails to create a professional and credible bureaucratic apparatus;
officials rely on personal networks for power and funds, thereby creating
patrimonial bureaucracies.” (pg 9) Some
scholars believe that patrimonialism and neopatrimonialism are results of a
colonial legacy.
In the case of Botswana, the authors
argue that neopatrimonial authority is compatible both with high levels of
legitimacy and with economic development. (pg 10) The leadership assumed a patrimonial
authority, but used it to further empower the government through economic and
infrastructure development. The Botswana
example demonstrates that “there is nothing inherent in patrimonialism to
prevent the creation of a democracy by leaders determined to do so.” (pg 25)
Misinterpretation of Weber has resulted
in numerous scholars associating neo and traditional patrimonialism as the
cause for stagnant economies or failed governments. The authors contend that true patrimonialism
involves reciprocity between the rulers and the subjects with rulers beholden
to the publics overall well being.
Finally, the authors state that scholars might be better served by
labeling governments by what they really are:
authoritarian regimes, dictatorships, or some form of democracy. (pg 26)
