print

«Developmental neopatrimonialism» as a political and economic phenomenon

Chaiko I.V.,

Russian State Social University, Moscow, Russia, ivchaiko@mail.ru

elibrary_id: 470637 | ORCID: 0000-0002-1326-596X |

Article received: 2025.06.30 08:46. Accepted: 2026.02.26 08:46


DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2026.04.06
EDN: NRHZAC

Rubric: Theory and methodology of political studies

For citation:

Chaiko I.V. «Developmental neopatrimonialism» as a political and economic phenomenon. – Polis. Political Studies. 2026. No. 4. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2026.04.06. EDN: NRHZAC (In Russ.)

Abstract

The main purpose of this study is to substantiate the model of a neopatrimonial “developmental state” as a political and economic system that most adequately corresponds to the specific sociocultural, institutional, and other conditions of many rapidly developing “non-Western” states. The main objectives of the study were: (1) to clarify the nature of the influence of neopatrimonial practices on the development trajectories of such countries; (2) to provide a critical analysis of the main provisions of the concept of the neopatrimonial “developmental state”; and (3) to examine the implementation of this concept through the examples of the BRICS countries and a number of other states. At the same time, the experience of individual countries demonstrates that this strategy does not always produce positive results. In this regard, it is possible to distinguish between relatively successful and unsuccessful neopatrimonial “developmental states”. The author’s analysis shows that the outcomes achieved by these countries were largely determined by the personal qualities and professional competence of their ruling elites. The achievements of the BRICS countries, and China in particular, attained under the leadership of a competent state bureaucracy and professional “development administrators”, provide vivid examples of this pattern. An analysis of the experience of these countries leads to the conclusion that the model of the neopatrimonial “development state” developed in contemporary political science most fully corresponds to their political and socio-cultural specificities and may therefore be regarded as a genuine alternative to existing neoliberal models. At the same time, the further evolution of neopatrimonial systems does not exclude the possibility of transcending the existing “neopatrimonial space” in the foreseeable future through the formation of qualitatively new types of political and economic organisation that harmoniously combine universalist and particularist features.

Keywords

neopatrimonialism, traditionalism, clientelism, patronage, corruption, bureaucracy, governance, rent, development state.

Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. (2012). Why nations fail: the origins of power, prosperity and poverty. New York: Crown Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1355/ae29-2j

Almond, G.A. (1956). Comparative political systems. The Journal of Politics, 18(3), 391-409. https://doi.org/10.2307/2127255

Almond, G.A., & Coleman, J.S. (1960). The politics of the developing areas. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Bach, D. (2011). Patrimonialism and neopatrimonialism: comparative trajectories and readings. Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, 49(3), 275-294. https://doi.org/10.1080/14662043.2011.582731

Bell, D.A. (2015). The China model: political meritocracy and the limits of democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400865505

Bolesta, A. (2007). China as a developmental state. Montenegrin Journal of Economics, 5, 105-111.

Booth, D., & Golooba-Mutebi, F. (2011). Developmental patrimonialism? The case of Rwanda. Africa Power and Politics Programme Working Paper, 16.

Burns, J.P., &  Xiaoqi, W. (2010). Civil service reform in China: Impacts on civil servants' behavior. China Quarterly, 201, 58-78. https://doi.org/10.1017/S030574100999107X

Chan, K.W, & Zhang, L. (1999). The Hukou System and rural-urban migration in China: processes and changes. The China Quarterly, 160, 818-855. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305741000001351

Crook, R. (1989). Patrimonialism, administrative effectiveness and economic development in Côte d’Ivoire. African Affairs, 88, 205-228. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.afraf.a098161

David-Barrett, E. (2023). State capture and development: a conceptual framework. Journal of International Relations and Development, 26, 224-244. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41268-023-00290-6

Diamond, L. (2015). Facing up to the democratic recession. Journal of Democracy, 26(1), 141-155. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2015.0009

Eisenstadt, S.N. (1973). Traditional patrimonialism and modern neopatrimonialism. London; Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Englebert, P. (2000). State legitimacy and development in Africa. Boulder: Lynne Rienner. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781685850050

Gel’man, V. (2021). Exceptions and rules: success stories and bad governance in Russia. Europe-Asia Studies, 73(6), 1080-1101. https://doi.org/10.1080/09668136.2021.1933391

Hale, H.E. (2014). Patronal politics: Eurasian regime dynamics in comparative perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139683524

Hout, W. (2016). Classical approaches to development: modernisation and dependency. In J. Grugel & D. Hammett (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of International Development (pp. 21-39). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-42724-3_2

Huntington, S.P. (1965). Political development and political decay. World Politics, 17(3), 386-430. https://doi.org/10.2307/2009286

Ilyin, M. (2015). Patrimonialism: what is behind the term – ideal type, category, concept or just a buzzword? Yearbook of Political Thought, Conceptual History and Feminist Theory, 18(1), 26-51. https://doi.org/10.7227/R.18.1.3

Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2005). Modernization, cultural change, and democracy: the human development sequence. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Jackson, R. (1990). Quasi-states: sovereignty, international relations and the third world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511559020

Joseph, R. (1987). Democracy and prebendal politics in Nigeria: the rise and fall of the Second Republic. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Kang, D. (2002). Crony capitalism: corruption and development in South Korea and the Philippines. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511606175

Kelsall, T. (2011). Rethinking the relationship between neopatrimonialism and economic development in Africa. IDS Bulletin, 42(2), 76-87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1759-5436.2011.00213.x

Kelsall, T., Booth, D., Cammack, D., & Golooba-Mutebi, F. (2010). Developmental patrimonialism? Questioning the orthodoxy on political governance and economic progress in Africa. Africa Power and Politics Programme Working Paper, 9.

Khan, M.H. (2000). Rents, efficiency and growth. In M.H. Khan & J.K. Sundaram (Eds.), Rents, Rent-Seeking and Economic Development: Theory and Evidence in Asia (pp. 21-65). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139085052.002

Lewis, P.M. (1996). From prebendalism to predation: the political economy of decline in Nigeria. The Journal of Modern African Studies, 34(1), 79-103. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022278X0005521X

Li, E.X. (2013). The life of the party: the post-democratic future begins in China. Foreign Affairs, 92(1), 34-46.

Lippmann, W. (1916). What program shall the United States stand for in international relations? Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 66, 60-70. https://doi.org/10.1177/000271621606600111

Magyar, B., & Madlovics, B. (2020). The anatomy of post-communist regimes: a conceptual framework. Budapest; New York: Central European University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9789633863701

Maracha, V., & Bespalov, S. (2021). Neopatrimonial model of public administration and its transformation in the context of global uncertainty. EPJ Web of Conferences, 248, 03003. https://doi.org/10.1051/epjconf/202124803003

Ramo, J.C. (2004). The beijing consensus. London: Foreign Policy Center.

Robinson, N. (2013). Economic and political hybridity: patrimonial capitalism in the post-Soviet sphere. Journal of Eurasian Studies, 4(2), 136-145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euras.2013.03.003

Schlumberger, O. (2008). Structural reform, economic order, and development: patrimonial capitalism. Review of International Political Economy, 15(4), 622-649. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290802260670

Stokes, S.C. (2005). Perverse accountability: a formal model of machine politics with evidence from Argentina. American Political Science Review, 99(3), 315-325. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055405051683

Theobald, R. (1982). Patrimonialism. World Politics, 34(4), 548-559. https://doi.org/10.2307/2010334

Weber, M. (1968). Economy and society: an outline of interpretive sociology. New York: Bedminster Press.

Wedeman, A. (2002). Development and corruption: the East Asian paradox. In E.T. Gomez (Ed.), Political Business in East Asia (pp. 34-61). New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203166338_chapter_1

Williamson, J. (2012). Is the “Beijing Consensus” now dominant? Asia Policy, 13(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1353/asp.2012.0012

Chaiko, I.V. (2026) “Beijing consensus” as a neopatrimonial political and economic system. Political Science (RU), 1, 329-349. (In Russ.) http://www.doi.org/10.31249/poln/2026.01.15

Chemshit, D.A. (2022). Political modernisation as an object of scientific research. Political Science Issues, 12(10), 3220-3237. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.35775/PSI.2022.86.10.002

Chubarov, I.G. (2025). Non-Western political systems in development: the case of whole process people’s democracy in China. Polis. Political Studies, 3, 41-60. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2025.03.04

Graham, T. (2020). China–Russia–US relations and strategic triangles. Polis. Political Studies, 6, 62-72. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2020.06.05

Huntington, S.P. (2011). Political order in changing societies. (Russ. ed.: Huntington, S.P. Politicheskiy poryadok v menyayushchikhsya obshchestvakh. Moscow: Progress-Tradiciya).

Ivanova, M.I., & Klepinin, A.V. (2025). New horizons of the developmental state model. Polis. Political Studies, 3, 96-112. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2025.03.07

Mikheev, V., & Lukonin, S. (2025). China: bitter dish with complex garnish. World Economy and International Relations, 69(4), 57-69. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.20542/0131-2227-2025-69-4-57-69

Nisnevich, Yu.A., & Ryabov, A.V. (2016). Modern authoritarianism and political ideology. Polis. Political Studies, 4, 162-181. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2016.04.13

Potapov, M.A. (2023). On the growth factors and model of economic development of China. Far Eastern Studies, 2, 55-71. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31857/S013128120024900-1

Rozov, N.S. (2024). Political (de)modernization of Russia in the 1990s: turning events and models of conflict dynamics. Polis. Political Studies, 3, 142-161. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2024.03.10

Vinogradov, A.V. (2025). Authoritarian state and corruption in China. Far Eastern Studies, 3, 94-111. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31857/S0131281225030078

Vinogradov, A.V., & Ryabov, A.V. (2019). Political systems of post-Soviet states and China in the process of inter-system transformation. Polis. Political Studies, 3, 69-86. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2019.03.05

Volkov, V.V. (2010). The Problem of credible commitment in the sphere of ownership and the Russian way of vertical political integration. Voprosy Ekonomiki, 8, 4-27. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2010-8-4-27

Zuenko, I.Yu. (2023). Evolution of Center-regional relations in China: from decentralization to recentralization. Tomsk State University Journal of History, 83, 87-95. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17223/19988613/83/12

See also: