How Neopatrimonialism Affects Tax Administration: A Comparative Study of Three World Regions

Abstract

Neopatrimonialism is a concept that has predominately been applied to describe governance in sub-Saharan Africa. Recently, though, it has also been used to describe states from other world regions. However, scholars have rarely attempted to systematically compare neopatrimonial rule in different regional settings. This paper aims to narrow this gap by examining the effect of neopatrimonialism on the tax administration as a core state function in six countries from three different world regions: Argentina, Venezuela, Indonesia, the Philippines, Kenya and Zambia. We conclude that neopatrimonialism is a valuable concept for comparative area studies with the potential to foster dialogue on the "state in operation" across the regional divide. However, several indicators are more valid for some world regions than for others. We find that there is no systematic relationship between neopatrimonial trajectories and the strength of tax administration. Individual actor decisions influence the outcomes of neopatrimonialism substantially.

Does democratisation foster effective taxation? Evidence from Benin

“…While the upward trend in the collection of taxes is in itself beneficial, it does not appear to have substantially altered Benin's mode of governance and to have put in motion a ‘virtuous circle’ of reinforcement of the state and of its accountability. This conclusion confirms the findings of case studies of other countries, where the expansion of central state revenues through the implementation of externally sponsored technocratic reform has been consistent with a neopatrimonial rationale (Soest 2007; Soest et al 2011).…”

The Strong and the Weak: Ups and Downs of State Capacity in Southeast Asia

“…Reforms initiated in 2001 reversed the decline in fiscal state capacity, manifested in a falling rate of tax receipts to GDP that had occurred in the final years of the Suharto regime. The success of the reform efforts has been attributed to the strong backing they received from the government, which viewed them as essential to achieving two highly prioritized political goals: to strengthen the fiscal position of the state and to improve the country's investment climate (Brondolo, Silvani, Le Borgne, & Bosch, 2008;Von Soest, Bechle, & Korte, 2011). Indonesia's strengthened fiscal capacity has also gone hand in hand with an ambitious expansion of social welfare, including a commitment to the creation of a comprehensive social security system with universal coverage ("Social Security Reform in Indonesia," 2006).…”

Max Weber in the tropics: How global climate politics facilitates the bureaucratization of forestry in Indonesia

“…If we can observe an increasing rational–legal, autonomous, and rule‐bound bureaucratic domination in such a country (Von Soest et al . 2011), then we might be able to derive some more general conclusions for the group of REDD+ countries in total. Finally, the last section summarizes our findings on the increasing Weberian bureaucratization, resonating Weber's own criticism of modernization, and we close by taking up contemporary institutionalist insights that might allow us to move beyond this impasse, reflect upon the normative change that will be needed to shift from exploitation to conservation, and indicate future research areas scrutinizing emerging hybrids of Weberian bureaucratization and non‐Western forms of governance.…”