TERMS.docx

29 Pages
267 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Political Science
Course
POLC38H3
Professor
Paul Kingston
Semester
Winter

Description
Defining corruption - Misuse of power by gov’t officials for illegitimate private gain; public office for private gain - Not political corruption if misuse of gov’t power for other purposes (repression of political opponents, general police brutality) - Forms of corruption enacted through use of money, bribery, extortion, cronyism, nepotism, patronage, graft, embezzlement, favoritism, data falsification, official theft, electoral fraud, use of administrative resources to intimidate voters and regime opponents, diversions of foreign aid and national revenue streams - Associated with public sector - Different types o Dash – small amount  Most harmless type  Part of developing societies  Form of small bribes, presents, favours to overcome aggression of shift from village personalism and transparency but not yet professionalism  Prevalent when low level of bureaucratic identity/corporate spirit  Helps people at low-levels who may not be getting paid but also screws up planning and decision making, helps sustain corruption env’t BUT weighing benefits against cost + small scale, overall self-canceling  Society’s unpreparedness for modernity rather than cause o Gulp – large amount, political/economical elites  Deepest effects  State policies chosen for monetary benefit upon officials/patrons at such a level that country will lose  Abolition of distinction b/w public and private  Mango corruption  Economic system still operates upon virtuous economic model while corrupts steal with secondary effects  Economy can still prosper  More money made, more money to steal  Baobab corruption  State itself set with objective of corruption  Economy doomed o Extractive – taking out of public in large amounts - Huge-scale o Informal economy o Drugs, arms, people, money laundering o Organized - Negative effect on quality of governance/government o Monopoly over use of violence o Privatize forms of security provision – when does it begin to weaken integrity of state o Emergence of privatized violence leads to collapse of viable states - Negative consequences for socio-economic development o Inefficient use of economic resources o Collapse of public authority, people leaving o Poor most affected - Correlation between gender and anti-corruption practices - Correlated with increasing levels of violence - Not found causal relationship - Expensive - Poverty creating - Weakness of political systems, dependence on status leads to corruption and violence - 4 qualitatively kinds of corruption – each require diff reforms tailored to underlying causes of problem o Influence markets (US, Germany, Japan):  Efforts by wealthy interests and individuals shaping specific policies by channeling funds to elected officials and party leader acting as middlemen b/w business and bureaucrats  Undermine vitality of democracy and may control corruption by accommodating power of wealth o Elite cartels:  Extended interlocking networks of political, bureaucratic, business, military, media elites sustained by sharing corrupt rewards and maintained as way to break off political competition  Short-middle-term continuity and predictability o Oligarchs and clans:  Dominate changing chaotic politics and economies of societies where liberalization has been extensive and institutions are weak o Official moguls:  Top political figures/personal favorites using state power to plunder economy with impunity  Tightly centralized or fragmented and networked - Form of super-privatization, diverting wealth into private hands beyond reach of economic rules and legitimate institutions - Negative effects: o Mass scale o Negative effects on government and property o Power to people that are not elected o Bad for socio-economic development o Inefficient use of economic resources o Negative consequences esp. in poor society - Controlling corruption is not choosing correct institutional forms and freeing up markets but encouraging social involvement to build political settlements capable of checking public and private abuses o Deep democratization Measuring corruption - Difficult to measure and judge impacts/effects o Qualitative research – surveys, participate observations  ethnographies o Judgements based on incidents o Different perceptions o Hidden - Study of corruption and violence o Behavioural/moral/cultural approaches o Structural approaches  Social structures – is poverty related?  Political structures – is state/regime types related?  Global structures – impact of relation between North and South? - Understanding roots of corruption and violence must look beyond behavioural factors o Systemic/structural factors creating social and political opportunities for political “entrepreneurs” in using corruption and violence to promote their goals - May have positive consequences States, regimes, governments - State as machinery, regime as software, government as operator - If state is monopoly of force and set of institutions to secure population and generate policy, then regime is norms and rules regarding proper relationship between freedom and equality and use of power, gov’t people controlling power - Country: shorthand for all concepts – state, gov’t, regime, people living there; political entity and citizens - Most institutionalized: State, regime, government - State, regime, government - Assess legitimacy (traditional, charismatic, rational-legal) - Assess dispersal of power (weak, strong, capacity, autonomy) - Reliance on political organization for relation between individual freedom and collective equality State - State is: o Monopoly of force over given territory o Set of political institutions to generate and carry out policy o Typically highly institutionalized and not easily changed o Sovereignty: ability to carry out actions/policies within territory independently from external actors/internal rivals o Characterized by institutions such as army, police, taxation, judiciary and social welfare system - Monopoly of force over territory and set of political institutions creating standards resolving freedom and equality - Political community occupying definite territory, organized government, possessing internal and external sovereignty - Recognition of state's claim to independence by other states, enabling it to enter in int’l agreements, important to establishment of statehood - Basic institutions of political system; ‘raw power’ or ‘infrastructural power’ of state; ‘hardware’ - Organization maintaining monopoly of violence over territory - Primary authority over territory and people there, set laws and rights, resolve disputes, generate domestic security - Needs power, typically physical o Military for int’l rivals o Police for domestic rivals - Set of institutions seeking to wield majority of force within territory o Provides security for subjects by eliminating threats – external attack, internal crime and disorder - Institutions (ministries, departments, offices, army, police) turn political ideas into policy o Law, regulations, property rights, health, labour, env’t, transportation - Achieve basic goals for freedom and equality - Valued for its own sake - Public views state as legitimate/vital/appropriate - Destruction through war/civil conflict possible but rare and usually states re-create - Causal variable in economic development/rise of democracy Government - Government: - Leadership/elite in charge of running state - Weakly institutionalized - Characterized by un/elected officials - Limited by existing regime - Organization with power to make and enforce laws for certain territory - Broadest sense, power to administrate over area of land, set group of people, association - People - How power is used in Canada Government: leadership/elite in charge of running state - Democratically elected legislators, presidents, prime ministers, leaders through force/non-democratic - Ideas regarding freedom and equality and use state to realize ideas - Confront existing regime in norms and values – may result in rebellion/collapse - Gov’t tend to be weakly institutionalized because of regime power o Those in power are not irreplaceable - Gov’t come and go, regimes and states live on - Leadership/elite in charge of running state - Short-term goals regarding freedom and equality based on existing regime providing institutionalized set of norms and values Regime - Regime: o Norms and rules regarding individual freedom and collective equality, locus of power, and use of power o Institutionalized but can be changed by dramatic social events o Either democratic or authoritarian o Fundamental rules and norms of politics - Institutions determining how gov’t is constituted, organized, how major decisions are made. o Indicates how ‘raw power’ is organized around set of fundamental rules o Rules found are ideally formal –within constitutions and bills of rights; ‘software’ of state - Long-term goals regarding individual freedom and collective equality, where power should reside, how it should be used - Guide states by serving as fundamental rules and norms of politics - Democratic o Rules and norms of politics emphasize role for public in governance, individual rights, liberties - Non-democratic o Limit public participation in favour of those in power - Variation in power centralization and relationship between freedom and equality - Rules and norms distinguishing regimes often unwritten and implicit - Regimes do not easily or quickly change although can be transformed  revolutions, national crisis - Most revolutions revolts not against state/leadership but against current regime – overthrow old rules and norms - Non-democratic countries with politics dominated by individual, leader referred as regime o All decisions through one person - Regimes through slow development or sudden revolution - Difficult to institutionalize regime if displacing previous set of rules and norms o Most effective when general public attachment to state binding people together - Often embodied in constitution State formation in Europe The Origins of Political Organization - Every person and property is subject of some state - Displaced all other forms of political organization - Why did people organize together? o Environment and agriculture, domesticating plants and animals – nomadic hunter-gather  sedentary o ^allowed food surpluses for greater human specialization o Agriculture gave sedentary living, property, specialization, but also inequality o Look for ways to resolve disputes, protect possessions o Concept of individualism vs. collective, freedom vs. equality o Reconciling demands and concerns, conceptualizing fairness  politics emerged - Organizations generate notions of laws and justice but requires revenue  taxation - Through consensus or force though? o Thomas Hobbes  social contract o Jean-Jacques Rousseau  noble savages o Neither correct - Pre-state societies violent and states appear to have emerged from constant warfare as set of individuals gained upper hand - State coercion ends endemic violence, form of legitimacy - States are subject to people and not vice versa - Early complex organizations o Mix of coercion and consensus o Economic relations based on agricultural production o Taxation, bureaucracy, laws, military force, leadership o Undefined borders - Two paths of political organization o Consensus  Individuals band together to protect themselves and create common rules; leadership chosen among people; security through co-operation  democratic rule o Coercion  Individuals brought together through ruler, imposing authority and monopolizing power; security through domination  authoritarian rule The Rise of the Modern State - Europe dominated by Roman empire - Decline brought loss of knowledge and reverted back to anarchy  Dark Ages - Initially typified by high degrees of social and political fragmentation - Political units competed violently with each other - Winners accumulate power, resources, and territory – demand for more - Eventually, growing political entities needed to regularize manner in which ruled over populations –from predatory extraction of resources to taxation by consent - Charles Tilly argues that, historically “war made the state” - Modern state emerged in reaction to organized crime w/ armed groups offering protection and demanding payment - Proximity to Asia and Middle East provided plants, animals, technical innovations - Geography hindered political centralization under single language/culture - State advantages: o Encouraged economic development  Laws, regulations, infrastructure for private property and individual profit  Property rights  Previously based on subsistence agriculture  Properties monopolized by those in power  Serfdom, taxation  Counterproductive as no incentive o Technological innovation  ^+ commerce = economic development  ^+ state toleration/encouragement of private enterprise  modern capitalism: system of private property, free markets, investment in pursuit of wealth o Domestic stability  Increase trade and commerce  Development of infrastructure  Travelling within territory encouraged interaction and development of shared culture  Standardization of language  Common ethnic identity with shared cultural values  nationalism: shared political identity - More economic power = ability to manage more people and territory - More finances and state organization = development of militaries - Ability to conquer land - Treaty of Westphalia curtailed pope authority o Free of spiritual authority, states direct w/o religion - State sovereignty dating from Treaty of Westphalia - European expansion imposed organizational structure of state by force - Even as European control receded, state structure stayed - States set int’l boundaries and int’l rules, primary actors in domestic and int’l politics Rational-legal legitimacy - Political legitimacy forms: charismatic, traditional, rational-legal - Legitimacy: value where something/someone is recognized and accepted as right and proper o Accepted and recognized by public o Grants authority and power o Power relying on consent and not coercion o Sense of reciprocal responsibility o Political legitimacy  Traditional  Someone/something valid because always been that way  Habits and customs over time  Strongly institutionalized  Charismatic  Weakly institutionalized  Commonly dies with individual  Force of idea and presence of leader  Rational-legal  Institutionalized laws and procedures  Rules and procedures  Strongly institutionalized  Officials are legitimate by virtue of rules by which they come into office  Abide by actors’ decision because believe that rules enforced serve public interest  Office is legitimate rather than person  Elected executive o Use of violence lessens legitimacy and institutionalized - Individual freedom associated with decentralization of power - Collective equality associated with centralization of power State capacity and autonomy - “States” O’Neil - Significant: autonomy sometimes hindered through globalization through SAP and ISI o SAP money goes toward debt away from public – tension b/w state and citizen, state not fulfilling duties o Can cause corruption: things stopping states from deciding themselves - Relation b/w state and other states and domestic actors - Also measure stateness through weak/strong, capacity/autonomy: - Capacity – have the power o Ability of state to wield power in order to carry out basic tasks of providing security, reconciling freedom and equality o High capacity  Formulate and enact policies  Ensure stability and security for itself and citizens  Requires money, organizations, legitimacy, effective leadership o Low capacity  Unable to^ - Autonomy – use the power o Ability of state to wield power independently of public/international actors o High degree of autonomy  Act on behalf of public  Pursue what it believes are best interest of country irrespective of public opinion o Low degree of autonomy  Act on behalf of private individuals/groups/states  Less able to disobey public will/groups - States with high degree of capacity and autonomy o Execute major policies easily o Fulfill basic tasks with minimum public intervention o High centralized power o Strong state o May be at expense of individual freedom o Undermine/prevent democracy - States with high degree of capacity but low autonomy o Widespread power but subjected to public authorization and oversight o Fulfill basic tasks but public plays direct role in determining policy and able to limit state power and activity o US and Canada o High individual freedom, constrained central authority and hindering national policy making o May be unable to develop new policies or respond to new challenges - States with high autonomy but low capacity o Few limits on decision making but lack ability to realize policies effectively o Function with minimum public interference/direct control o Limited capacity to fulfill basic tasks o May be ineffectual, limited/slow development provoking public unrest o Russia - States lacking autonomy and capacity o Unable to fulfill basic tasks  Encouraging national development, ensuring public education  Failed states o Subject to direct public control and interference o Power highly decentralized among state/non-state o Weak state o May lead to internal state failure - Why are states de/centralized, have capacity/autonomy? o Int’l threats affecting relation between taxation (war) and representation (how state conducts itself) - Autonomy: State autonomy theorists believe that the state is an entity that is impervious to external social and economic influence, and has interests of its own - Strong states o Able to fulfill basic tasks  Defend territory  Make and enforce rules  Collect taxes  Manage economy - Weak states o Cannot execute basic tasks well o Rules randomly applied o Tax evasion, public non-compliance o Armed rivals, rebel movements, organized crimes, other states may control territory/economy o State officials have little faith/responsibility  Use jobs to for self-interest through corruption and theft o Low economic development o Not well institutionalized, lack authority, legitimacy o Break down to become failed state The failed state index - Social = demographic pressures, refugee flows, presence of vengeance seeking groups, internal displacement - Economic = uneven economic development, sharp economic decline - Political = delegitimization/criminalization of the state, deterioration of public services, arbitrary application of rule of law, rising power of private security provision, factionalization of elite political class, increasing penetration of external actors… - - Measures stability of states according to set of criteria, weak economy, corruption, lack of political stability, weak governance - Problem: corruption occurs in many forms, FSI only measurable forms, not definite because criteria set by US o Lumps too many factors into one basket, through North American pov - Central government so weak/ineffective that has little practical control over much of territory; non-provision of public services; widespread corruption and criminality; refugees and involuntary movement of populations; sharp economic decline - Measured by looking at social, economic and political factors - Different inputs/sub-measures into index: social, economic, political - Failed states: Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iraq, Sudan, Somalia - Overall stagnation - Instability is key indicator of state failure o From revolutions against dictators - 177 countries, 12 Indicators: from political stability, to demographic strain - Somalia (1 ): drought, famine, violence, nonfunctional gov’t - Africa has more than half of worst countries - Mostly incremental and not radical improvement o Though;  Colombia: better security and trade relations  Myanmar: freed political prisoners, opening economy, lifting restrictions on media, democratic vote - Uncertainty for 2013 o South Sudan vs. Sudan in north o North Korea’s nuclear policies 10 Reasons Countries Fall Apart - Some because of: o Total collapse of state institutions o Afghanistan, Sierra Leone - Most because of: o Inability to take advantage of society’s potential for growth, condemning citizens to poverty o Slow failure as opposed to explosion of war and violence o Asia, Latin America - Failure by design – collapse because of extractive economic institutions  Destroy incentives  Discourage innovation  Sap citizen talent by creating tilted playing field and taking away opportunities o For benefits of elites at society’s expense  Gain valuable minerals, forced labour, protected monopolies  Rigged political institutions 1. Property Rights o North Korea  Economic institutions make it impossible to own property  State owns everything  Agriculture organized via collective farms  Work for Korean Workers’ Party and not themselves  1980 allowed to have small land and sell growth – not much impact because of overall lack of property rights 2. Forced Labour o Slavery, serfdom o Responsible for lack of innovation and technological progress o Uzbekistan  Biggest export: cotton  School children pick crops  teachers = labour recruiters  Beneficiaries: President and those controlling production and sale of cotton 3. Tilted Playing Field o South Africa  Colour bar  Skilled job/profession only for European  Forced black South Africans as unskilled workers with low wages  Profitable for elites 4. Big Men Get Greedy o Egypt  Elites controlling economy use power to create monopolies and block entry  Nepotism – protection, gov’t contracts, bank loans w/o collateral  Profits for insides and blocked opportunities for majority 5. Elites Block New Technologies o Austria, Russia  Refused to build railways o New technologies are disruptive o Existing skills, organizations and old business models obsolete o Redistribute income, wealth, political power o Thus, elites try to stop progress 6. No Law and Order o Effective centralized state for successful economy, order, system of laws, mechanisms for resolving disputes, public goods o Somalia  Internationally recognized gov’t but little power  Historically divided into clans with decisions made by adult males consensus; no gov’t  Unable to collect taxes during British colonization  No central state  no law and order  no economy  country failure 7. Weak Central Government o Colombia  Central gov’t unable to control country, dominated by left-wing guerillas, farc, right-wing paramilitaries  Lack of public services – roads, health care, institutionalized property rights  Uncertainty leads to violence  Ban on land transaction led to failure to partake in modern economic activities 8. Bad Public Services o Peru: Calca vs. Acomayo  Both high in mountains, grow crops  Acomayo poorer; no paved roads – horse/mule; crops for own subsistence  Calca richer; paved roads; sale crops for money 9. Exploitation o Bolivia  History of extractive institutions  resentment  Revolts against elite land/mine owners led by urbanites excluded from power and patronage  Used power to acquire land and mine and create political party (Revolutionary Nationalist Movement)  inequality fell at first but rose again after revoking extended political rights  Iron law of oligarchy – one elite replaced another  Rural people still had insecure property rights, sell votes for land access/credit/work except to political party instead of landowners 10. Fighting over the Spoils o Intense extraction creates instability and failure  iron law of oligarchy, incentive to take over existing elite’s powers o Sierra Leone  Creates grievances and invites contest for power - [Failed States Chart] Indicators of instability o Demographic pressures o Refugees and displaced persons o Group grievances o Human fight o Uneven development o Economy o Delegitimization of state o Public service o Human rights o Security apparatus o Factionalized elites o External intervention - List of countries by order of appearance in failed states Index of the United States - Social = demographic pressures, refugee flows, presence of vengeance seeking groups, internal displacement - Economic = uneven economic development, sharp economic decline - Political = Delegitimization/criminalization of the state, deterioration of public services, arbitrary application of rule of law, rising power of private security provision, fictionalization of elite political class, increasing penetration of external actors Colonial legacies and states in the Global South - Colonial legacies left many post-colonial countries with fragmented societies, unevenly developed economies, and weak states… - Power often leads to wealth, not visa versa… - Great social dependence on access to state resources… - State as crucial intermediary between society and the global arena – huge opportunities for ‘rent-seeking’… - Stakes are huge – politics as a ‘zero-sum’ game… - Hence, social actors representing private interests seek to ‘penetrate’ and ‘capture’ the public resources of the state… - In societies characterized by scarcity, this is often even more so the case…. - Clapham: “the quest for state power takes on a pathological dimension” – especially in weak that are more vulnerable to the penetration of private networks and interest group… - Sovereignty – all states as being legally equal within the UN system. Yet… - Wide disparities between legal sovereignty and reality. There are clearly widely different ‘degrees of stateness’… - How many states have a monopoly over the use of violence….? - How many states have control over a defined territory…” - Spawned notion of ‘quasi-states’… - Institutions of control more developed than institutions of social/political representation – Clapham refers to “the structure of control”… - Powerful militaries, police forces, security forces, paramilitary forces, special courts, special emergency laws, etc…. - Weaker institutions of political participation – limited legislative power vis a vis executives within constitutions, under-developed political society (parties, etc), limited development and integration of civil society (social organizations), highly fragmented political elite structures of power… - Why????? - Many colonial states were imposed on societies… - Emphasis on extraction of order and the resources…. - Powerful lines of authority and legitimacy moved globally… - Colonial systems of indirect rule – use of local, traditional forms of authority to maintain order over societies… - Underlying coercive nature to the political order (despite the relative small size of the colonial state – the ‘thin white line’)… - Divide and rule tactics exacerbated social fragmentation (eg’s….?)… - Indirect rule strengthened informal avenues of access to political power – shadow states… - Promotion of uneven economic development (regional disparities, urban-rural divides, weak development of middle and working classes)… - Late creation of political institutions – in a rush before de-colonization after WW2… - Legislative branches not given strong powers – constitutionally disadvantaged… - Abuse of democratic institutions and rules (vote rigging, gerrymandering, limited franchise (property, gender), use of violence)… - Hence, democracy had shallow roots in post-colonial societies, leading to states being captured by ‘particularistic’ groups… - ‘Blurred’ lines of authority within the state… - Eg. – between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the political system… - Eg. – between the government, the regime, and the state itself (what is happening in Syria right now?!)…. - Prevalence of informal, cross-cutting political networks dynamics over formal rules and procedures… - Hence, the political system is characterized by multiple rules of the game with the state being made up of “competing bundles of agencies and actors”… - In this sense, states are sometimes quite incoherent and ‘weak’… - Huge gaps/disparities of power between political elites and the citizenry… - Eg. – concentration of economic wealth and power… - Eg. – concentration of social power, preventing social mobilization of the citizenry (divide and rule, etc)… - Eg. – concentration of political power (‘vetoing’ attempts at policy reforms, weak political institutions linking state and society, etc)… - Eg. – attempts to control the coercive apparatus of the state…. - In this sense, states can appear to be quite strong, ‘fierce’, and autonomous from the interests and power of society… - States as strong in terms of coercive and autonomous power. Yet… - States as weak in several ways: - Weak representative links with society as a whole – hence, weak legitimacy… - Weak internal coherence/multiple rules of the game – hence, weak infrastructural power… - States as penetrated by external forces – hence, weak sovereignty…. - One way of thinking about processes of state formation in the post-colonial era is to divide the processes into two phases…. - The first revolves around the attempts to strengthen states and regimes – which I will call the ‘modernization project’… - The second revolves around attempts to contain the politically destabilizing consequences of modernization – which I call the ‘clientelist project’…. - Yet, projects to modernize states, societies, and economies in post-colonial countries poses many dangers – especially for ruling elites… - Hence, elites have often reverted to the projects of maintaining order (and their power) through the widespread use of clientelist political practices… - - Hindering development - European colonization – coercive - Scramble for Africa - Positive impacts of colonialism o Generate wealth o Improvements for basic human needs o Improvement in social mobility o Breakdown of traditional social structures o New ideas – nationalism, socialism, individual rights - Negative impacts of colonialism o Social fragmentation  Destruction of indigenous communities  Social effects of forced labour regime o Uneven economic development – dual economy  Export-orientated economic development  Concentration on primary goods production, raw materials rather than industrialization or economic self-sufficiency  Destruction of pre-existing systems of economic/industrial production  Widening of socio-economic disparities o Weak state formation  Strong legacies of coercive institution building (police, courts)  Weak legacies of building political and representative institutions (legislatures, elections, rights-based constitutions)  Colonial policies made worse dynamics social fragmentation and process of nation-building difficult (arbitrary borders, indirect rule, creation of tribal groups  Weak sovereignty – ability to broadcast power and control territory  Borders divided ethnic groups - Reversed development o Slave trade o Dutch and spice trade o Dual economy - Many colonial states imposed on societies - Emphasis on extraction of order and resources - Powerful lines of authority and legitimacy moved globally - Colonial systems of indirect rule – use of local, traditional forms of authority to maintain order over societies - Underlying coercive nature to the political order (despite the relative small size of the colonial state ) - Important b/c touches upon the economic and investment - Politically divided and ruled, when left and made independent, imposed institutions on them, have to develop very fast Post-colonial state formation – the ‘modernization’ project - The first revolves around the attempts to strengthen states and regimes – which I will call the ‘modernization project’… - 1. Developing the state apparatus: - increase in size… - developing a rational-legal ‘planning’ apparatus… - extending its bureaucratic presence deep into society… - in short, increasing the infrastructural power of the post-colonial state… - 2. Promoting Economic Development (and Power!) - Used the state to concentrate national control over economic resources – eg. nationalization of foreign economic enterprises, state controls (tariffs, etc) over the inflow and outflows of capital… - Re-channel resources into the promotion of industrial development – eg. big push industrialization… - Promotion of economic re-distribution – land reform, creation of social welfare, health, and welfare infrastructure, etc… - All designed to develop ‘economic sovereignty’ as well as promote social integration… - 3. Developing a Political Apparatus… - Key purpose here is to reduce the institutional gaps between states and societies… - Creating and promulgating a modern constitution… - Creating political parties (competing populist parties and/or single corporatist parties)… - Holding elections – often within an authoritarian context – either between parties or within them… - Launching campaigns to promote the legitimacy of the state – ideologically, nationalistically, charismatically, developmentally (Saudi Arabia – 60 years of ‘development without change’!!!)… - All designed to mobilize the citizenry in support of post-colonial development goals – political integration…. - Three Basic Challenges… - Significant successes (growth, distribution of income, growth of state apparatus, greater external power, etc). Yet… - Economically unsustainable – symbolized by the emergence of the debt crisis and the rise of neo-liberalism… - States often remained captured by particularistic elite groups - sparking severe intra-elite competition and fragmentation for resources… - Widespread social mobilization (inherent in the ‘modernization project’) posed dangers to self-seeking political elites… - - Even as European control receded, state structure stayed - Europe took hundreds of years to create modern states while majority of world created out of necessity/force - New states lack resources, infrastructure, capital, organization o Challenges establishing sovereignty - Challenging imperial legacies - Decolonization – catch up with West and complement political independence with economic independence o Colonial powers withdrew and granted societies political independence - Starting from weakness, economic subordination and dependence - Goal to modernize societies, economies (industrialization), polities (rational-legal strong states) in image of West - Strategy to concentrate power and resources in hands of state – authoritarian routes to development and democracy - Using Import Substitution Industrialization (ISI) Policies - Despite decolonization after WWII, global North esp. US created mechanisms of global governance (UN, IMF, WB, WTO) giving North dominant power o South states forced to approach IMF and WB for loan assistance o Conditional basis – dismantle state-led development policies o Market openings promoted by political power of North o Conditionality revolved around Structural Adjustment Programs o Will help Global South according to North’s rules o Many South states continued dependence and indebtedness Clientelism (patron-client relations) - Political elites move away from the modernist project designed to promote social, economic, and political mobilization… - Move towards the clientelist project designed to maintain order through processes of political control and de- politicization… - Three questions: - What is clientelism? - What are its advantages? - What are its disadvantages? - May have no notion of corruption if things always been like that - Exchange of goods/service for political support; unequal exchange leading to exploitation - A way of linking up state and society - Based upon exchanges and bargains between those with access to state and those who want access - Facilitates processes of accumulation by political elite while generating compliance of society - Bargains are ‘voluntary’ - Bargains are also inherently unequal, often underpinned by latent threats of coercion - Rules of exchange are informal hence political access determined by informal rather than rule-based institutions o Formal rules DO NOT explain political behaviour - Systems of clientelist politics are also described as ‘patrimonial’ or ‘neo-patrimonial’ o Patrimonialism: form of governance in which all power flows directly from leader  Ascribed to one person rather than office-holder (in contrast to rational-legal) (such as father over his children)  Leader/followers have no defined power b/c not about amount of power but on whose behalf it is used  Those lower on political hierarchy not subordinates with defined powers/functions but positions depending on leader  Oath of loyalty, kinship ties rather than administrative  Constitutes blending of public and private sector.  Regimes autocratic oligarchic and exclude upper and middle classes from power.  Leaders enjoy absolute personal power  Armies loyal to the leader not nation. o Neo-Patrimonialism: patrons use state resources in order to secure the loyalty of clients in general population  Informal patron-client relationship that can reach from high up in state structures down to individuals  Underlay or supplant bureaucratic structure of state in that only those with connections have real
More Less

Related notes for POLC38H3

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit