Rethinking Patrimonialism and Neopatrimonialism in Africa

Abstract

Abstract:Current usages of the terms patrimonial and neopatrimonial in the context of Africa are conceptually problematical and amount to a serious misreading of Weber. His use of the term patrimonial delineated a legitimate type of authority, not a type of regime, and included notions of reciprocity and voluntary compliance between rulers and the ruled. Those reciprocities enabled subjects to check the actions of rulers, which most analyses of (neo) patrimonialism overlook. We apply these insights to a case study of Botswana and suggest that scholars reconsider the application of Weber's concepts to African states.

Globalisation, accounting and developing countries

“…Weber (1947) saw patrimonialism as a traditional and legitimate form of authority often found in small-scale, traditional, sometimes tribal societies where relations between rulers and subjects are not governed by predictable economic calculations and codified laws (Pitcher et al, 2009). Here rulers distribute symbolic and material rewards (often unevenly) to fulfil reciprocal obligations in a shared culture.…”

“…Nevertheless, leaders are accountable within traditional collective codes (Pitcher et al, 2009). Eisenstadt (1973), Médard (1983) and Clapham (1985) added the prefix 'neo' to distinguish contemporary patrimonialism from its traditional form.…”

Neopatrimonialism and Democracy: An Empirical Investigation of Africa's Political Regimes

“…As a number of pieces have persuasively argued, the concept is deployed so broadly that it tends to cloud the large variation in economic and political outcomes across the continent (Pitcher et al, 2009;Bach, 2011;Mkandawire, 2015;Crook, 1989;Theobald, 1982). Contrary to the dominant perspectives, these works show how neopatrimonialism can be a force for democracy, social cohesion, redistribution, administrative effectiveness and development.…”

“…Italy or the U.S. in the 19th century), it seems reasonable to assume that democratic institutions, even if rooted in patrimonial authority, can indeed survive in such favorable conditions. This assumption becomes even more credible if we take seriously the perspectives of Pitcher et al (2009), Mkandawire (2001, Médard (2000) and others that patrimonialism constitutes not only a mechanism of predation, but also a potential force for meaningful regulation and progress. Our challenge then, is not solely to understand if neopatrimonial democratic rule reflects a lesser and more vulnerable form of democracy, though that is certainly important, but to better understand how configurations of formal democratic institutions interact with patrimonial authority to produce different regime outcomes.…”

“…In fact, there is now considerable evidence that democratization, even in neopatrimonial contexts, can bring about expansions in civil rights and political freedoms (Lindberg, 2006;Edgell et al, 2017), the institutionalization of constitutional rule (Posner and Young, 2007), improvements in governance (Alence, 2004) and wider distributions of public goods and services (Stasavage, 2005;Burgess et al, 2015). Moreover, some have argued that patrimonialism may actually promote both democracy (Pitcher et al, 2009) and developmental governance (Crook, 1989;Booth and Golooba-Mutebi, 2012;Kelsall, 2013).…”