Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T01:03:19.722Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Patrimonialism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2011

R. Theobald
R. Theobald
Affiliation:
Polytechnic of Central London
Get access

Abstract

During the last decade, the concept of patrimonialism has become firmly embedded in political science and the sociological literature, being used primarily to explain the operation of bureaucracies in the underdeveloped world. This research note examines some of the usages of the term and attempts to assess its explanatory value. It is suggested that, as employed in much recent literature, “patrimonialism” has not contributed a great deal to the understanding of underdeveloped polities. The author argues that this is primarily because the literature has generally ignored the broader structural factors of which the phenomenon of patrimonialism is a manifestation. Taking account of these structural factors and locating patrimonialism within the broader context of underdevelopment will better equip us to understand the character and operation of Third World bureaucracies.

Type
Research Note
Information
World Politics , Volume 34 , Issue 4 , July 1982 , pp. 548 - 559
Copyright
Copyright © Trustees of Princeton University 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Roth, , “Personal Rulership, Patrimonialism, and Empire-building in the New States,” World Politics, XX (January 1968), 194–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 See, for example, Bill, James A. and Leiden, Carl, The Middle East: Politics and Power (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1974)Google Scholar, esp. chap. 4; Roett, Riordan, Brazil: Politics in a Patrimonial Society (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1972)Google Scholar; Willame, Jean-Claude, Patrimonialism and Political Change in the Congo (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1972).Google Scholar

3 Shor, See, “The Thai Bureaucracy,” Administrative Science Quarterly, V (June 1960), 66–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Roth (fn. 1), 204–6.

5 Heeger, , The Politics of Underdevelopment (London: Macmillan, 1974)Google Scholar, esp. chap. 3.

6 Heeger here cites Waterbury's, John study of Moroccan politics, Commander of the Faithful (New York: Columbia University Press, 1971).Google Scholar

7 Ibid., 54.

8 Lemarchand, René and Legg, Keith, “Political Clientelism and Development: A Preliminary Analysis,” Comparative Politics, IV (No. 2, 1972), 149–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9 Ibid., 160.

10 See Roett (fn. 2), esp. chaps. 2 and 5.

11 Crouch, , “Patrimonialism and Military Rule in Indonesia,” World Politics, XXXI (July 1979), 571–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 I have chosen not to discuss Willame's study of patrimonialism in the Congo (fn. 2), primarily because he sees the essence of patrimonialism in its decentralized character. He thereby departs both from Weber's position and from the bulk of subsequent writing on patrimonialism. In addition to Weber's own discussion in Economy and Society (New York: Bedminster Press, 1968), III, chap. 12, see Eisenstadt, S. N., Traditional Patrimonialism and Modern Neopatrimonialism (London: Sage Publications, 1973), 15–17Google Scholar; Morse, Robert M., “The Heritage of Latin America,” in Hartz, Louis, ed., The Founding of New Societies (New York: Harcourt Brace & World, 1964), 157Google Scholar; and Trimberger, Ellen Kay, Revolution From Above (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books, 1978), 44–45.Google Scholar

13 For an excellent critique of the uses of the patron-client concept, see Kaufman, Robert R., “The Patron-Client Concept and Marco-politics: Prospects and Problems,” Comparative Studies in Society and History, XIV (July 1974), 254–308.Google Scholar

14 Rudolph, Lloyd I. and Rudolph, Susanne Hoeber, “Authority and Power in Bureaucratic and Patrimonial Administration: A Revisionist Interpretation of Weber on Bureaucracy,” World Politics, XXXI (January 1979), 195–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15 See, for example, Bendix, Reinhard, “Tradition and Modernity Re-considered,” Comparative Studies in Society and History, IX (April 1967), 292–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Gusfield, Joseph, “Tradition and Modernity: Misplaced Polarities in the Study of Social Change,” American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 72 (January 1967), 351–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16 See, for example, Mouzelis, Nicos P., Organization and Bureaucracy, An Analysis of Modern Theories (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1967).Google Scholar

17 An example of patrimonialism in a modern context cited by Rudolph and Rudolph (fn. 14), 224–25.

18 Roett (fn. 2), 129.

19 See Ake, Claude, “Charismatic Legitimation and Political Integration,” Comparative Studies in Society and History, IX (October 1966), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For a brief review of the main criticisms of “charisma,” see Theobald, Robin, “A Charisma too Versatile?” European Journal of Sociology, XIX (No. 1, 1978), 192–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20 See, particularly, Dekmejian, Richard H. and Wirszomirski, Margaret J., “Charismatic Leadership in Islam: The Mahdi of the Sudan,” Comparative Studies in Society and History, XIV (March 1972), 193–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also Theobald, Robin, “The Role of Charisma in the Development of Social Movements,” Archives de Sciences Sociales des Religions, XLIX, (No. 1, 1980), 83–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21 See Weber (fn. 12), III, 1028–31.

22 Ibid., 968.

23 See, for example, Tilly, Charles, ed., The Formation of National States in Europe (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975), 72–73Google Scholar; Krygier, Martin, “State and Bureaucracy in Europe; the Growth of a Concept,” in Kamenka, Eugene and Krygier, Martin, eds., Bureaucracy: The Career of a Concept (London: Edward Arnold, 1979)Google Scholar; and Anderson, Eugene N. and Anderson, Pauline, “Bureaucratic Institutionalization in Nineteenth-Century Europe,” in Heidenheimer, Arnold J., ed., Political Corruption: Readings in Comparative Analysis (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books, 1978), 91–105.Google Scholar

24 Wertheim, “Sociological Aspects of Corruption in South Asia,” ibid., 195–291.

25 See, for example, Kaldor, Nicholas, “Taxation for Economic Development,” Journal of Modern African Studies, I (No. 1, 1963), 7–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

26 Bienen, , “The Economic Environment,” in Hyden, Goran, Jackson, Robert H., and Okumu, John H., eds., Development Administration: The Kenyan Experience (Nairobi: Oxford University Press, 1970), 59.Google Scholar

27 For a useful discussion, see John J. Okumu, “The Socio-political Setting,” ibid., 25–42.

28 In addition to Okumu, ibid., see Leys, Colin, “Administration Training in Kenya,” in Schaffer, Bernard, ed., Administrative Training and Development: A Comparative Study of East Africa, Zambia, Pakistan and India (London: Praeger, 1974), 161–210.Google Scholar See also Schaffer, Bernard, “Administrative Legacies and Links in the Post-colonial State: Preparation, Training and Administrative Reform,” Development and Change, IX (No. 2, 1978), 175–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar