Classification as a Way of Overcoming the Conceptual Stretching
Cand. Sci. (Polit. Sci.), Research Fellow, Institute of Philosophy and Law, Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, firstname.lastname@example.org_id: 913396 | ORCID: 0000-0001-7200-659X | RESEARCHER_ID: AAB-7492-2020
The article summarizes the claims made for increasingly popular neopatrimonialism concept. Formed as a response to non-obviousness of basic assumptions and conceptual lengthiness of transit paradigm, neopatrimonialism concept itself became to generate significant conceptual stretching in the analysis of states, political development that contrasts with the Western democratic patterns. Regarded as neopatrimonial, African, Latin American, Southeast Asian, Central Asian and Eastern European states vary greatly according to the imposing volume of settings: on the principles of bureaucracy functioning, on the degree of political competition, on the role and the spread depth of the patron-client networks, nepotism and other informal practices. Therefore, speaking about neopatrimonialism, researchers focus each time on a different set of characteristics. An impressive body of empiric neopatrimonial researches sprained his conceptual framework to significant confusion. Following the theory of conceptual stretching by D. Sartori, one can say that in comparative neopatrimonial studies there is violation of rules on climbing the ladder of abstraction. Against the background of a large number of empirical studies carried out in line with the neopatrimonial paradigm, researches on understanding neopatrimonial concept per se constitute a negligible percentage and require development. The indiscriminate and uncritical application of neopatrimonial paradigm can be overcome through the more complete conceptualization of the neopatrimonialism concept. One of the main tasks in this way is the classification of neopatrimonial regimes. Author analyzes the existing approaches to such classifications and justifies the necessity of separation neopatrimonial regimes for regulated and predatory forms. The article analyzes the concepts emerging in the related fields of Political Studies, for their ability to enrich the proposed classification of neopatrimonial regimes. The idea of predatory neopatrimonial forms enriched by achievements of the “predatory state” phenomenon research. Neoinstitutional dilemma of the credible commitment of property rights could potentially be fruitful to study the regulated forms of neopatrimonialism. This approach to classification of neopatrimonial regimes offers significant prospects for further operationalization and conceptualization of neopatrimonialism.
Bach D.C. Patrimonialism and Neopatrimonialism: Comparative Trajectories and Readings. – Commonwealth & Comparative Politics. 2011. Vol. 49. No. 3. P. 275-294. https://doi.org/10.1080/14662043.2011.582731
Bavister-Gould A. Predatory Leaderships, Predatory Rule and Predatory States. – Concept Brief. 2011. No. 1. P. 1-9.
Bigo D. Pouvoir et obéissance en Centrafrique. Karthala Editions. 1988. 360 p.
Bourmaud D. L’Etat centrifuge au Kenya. – Etats d’Afrique noire: Formations, mécanismes et crise. Paris. Ed. Karthala, coll. “Hommes et societes”. 1991. P. 241-277.
Bratton M., Van de Walle N. Democratic Experiments in Africa: Regime Transitions in Comparative Perspective. Cambridge, U.K.; New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press. 1997. 311 p. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139174657
Carothers T. The End of the Transition Paradigm. – Journal of Democracy. 2002. Vol. 13. No. 1. P. 5-21. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2002.0003
Crook R.C. Patrimonialism, Administrative Effectiveness and Economic Development in Coˆte d’Ivoire. – African Affairs. 1989. Vol. 88. No. 351. P. 205-228. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.afraf.a098161
Crouch H. Patrimonialism and Military Rule in Indonesia. – World Politics. 1979. Vol. 31. No. 4. P. 571-587. https://doi.org/10.2307/2009910
Durazo Herrmann J. Neo-Patrimonialism and Subnational Authoritarianism in Mexico. The Case of Oaxaca. – Journal of Politics in Latin America. 2010. Vol. 2. No. 2. P. 85-112.
Eisenstadt S.N. Traditional Patrimonialism and Modern Neopatrimonialism. Beverly Hills, Calif.; London: Sage. 1973. 96 p.
Erdmann G., Engel U. Neopatrimonialism Reconsidered: Critical Review and Elaboration of an Elusive Concept. – Commonwealth & Comparative Politics. 2007. Vol. 45. No. 1. P. 95-119. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14662040601135813
Fisun A. Post-Soviet Neopatrimonial Regimes: the Genesis, Characteristics, Typology. – Otechestvennye zapiski. 2006. №. 6. P. 8-28 (In Russ.)
Gelman V. Modernizatsiya, instituty i “porochnyi krug” postsovetskogo neopatrimonializma [Modernization, Institutions and the “Vicious Circle” of Post-Soviet Neopatrimonialism]. Saint Petersburg: EUSP Press. 2015. 44 p. (In Russ.).
Ilyin M. Patrimonialism. What is Behind the Term: Ideal Type, Category, Concept or just a Buzzword? – Yearbook of Political Thought, Conceptual History and Feminist Theory. 2015. Vol. 18. No. 1. P. 26-51.
Kang D.C. Crony Capitalism: Corruption and Development in South Korea and the Philippines. Cambridge University Press. 2002. 203 p. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511606175
Kelsall T., Booth D., Cammack D., Golooba-Mutebi F. Developmental Patrimonialism? Questioning the Orthodoxy on Political Governance and Economic Progress in Africa. Africa Power and Politics. Working Paper o. 9. 2010. 33 p;
Liddle W.R. The Relative Autonomy of the Third World Poltician: Soeharto and Indonesian Economic Development in Comparative Perspective. – International Studies Quarterly. 1991. Vol. 35. No. 4. P. 403-427. https://doi.org/10.2307/2600948
Linden R.H. Socialist Patrimonialism and the Global Economy: the Case of Romania. – International Organization. 1986. Vol. 40. No. 2. P. 347-380.
Melnikov K. Evaluation of Transformation Approaches to the Definition of Neopatrimonialism. – Management Issues. 2016. №. 6. P. 13-22 (In Russ.)
Mkandawire T. Thinking about Developmental States in Africa. – Cambridge Journal of Economics. 2001. Vol. 25. No. 3. P. 289-314. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/25.3.289
North D.C., Weingast B.R. Constitutions and Commitment: the Evolution of Institutions Governing Public Choice in Seventeenth-century England. – The Journal of Economic History. 1989. Vol. 49. No. 4. P. 803-832. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022050700009451
Owen J.D. Neopatrimonialism and Regime Endurance in Transnistria. Doctoral dissertation. Virginia Tech. 2009. 98 p.
Roett R. Brazil: Politics in a Patrimonial Society. Greenwood Publishing Group. 1999. 244 p.
Sartori G. Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics (I). – Polis. Political Studies. 2003. No. 3. P. 67-77. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2003.03.07
Sartori G. Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics (II). – Polis. Political Studies. 2003. No. 4. P. 152-160 (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2003.04.14
Volkov V. The Problem of Credible Commitment of Property Rights and the Russian Version of the Vertical Political Integration. – Voprosy Ekonomiki. 2011. No. 8. P. 4-27 (In Russ.)
Von Soest C. What Neopatrimonialism is – Six Questions to the Concept. – GIGA-Workshop” Neopatrimonialism in various World Regions”. Hamburg: GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies. 2010. 21 p.
Weber M. Wirtschaft und gesellschaft. Grundriss der verstehenden Soziologie. (Russ. ed.: Weber M.
Khozyaistvo i obshchestvo: ocherki ponimayushchei sotsiologii. Moscow: HSE publ. 2016. Vol. 1. 445 p.)
Wedeman A. Looters, Rent-Scrapers, and Dividend-Collectors: Corruption and Growth in Zaire, South Korea, and the Philippines. – The Journal of Developing Areas. 1997. Vol. 31. No. 4. P. 457-478.
Young C., Turner T. The Rise and Decline of the Zairian State. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. 1985. 522 p.
The Theory of Political Regimes’ Transformation and Nature of Neopatrimonialism. – Polis. Political Studies. 2015. No6
Russian Political Regime in the Rent-estate Perspective. – Polis. Political Studies. 2016. No4
Prospects of political anthropology. – Polis. Political Studies. 2011. No6
Trapped in Hybridity: Ukraine’s Regime Transformations after the 2014 Revolution. – Polis. Political Studies. 2018. No1
Neopatrimonial Regimes: Diversity, Dynamics, and Prospects for Democratization. – Polis. Political Studies. 2016. No1