State Failure or State Formation? Neopatrimonialism and Its Limitations in Africa


Neopatrimonialism and state failure have been buzzwords for describing a wide selection of issues of the African state. Mainstream in addition to important political scientist discourses blame neopatrimonial constructions for numerous social, financial and political ills that quantity to “state failure” in Africa (Pitcher, Moran, & Johnston, 2009, p. 130). This view casts a deterministic shadow over the political panorama in Africa, the place persisting neopatrimonial constructions are perceived to have led to state decline and the place African states can’t escape their eventual destiny of state failure (Wai, 2012, p. 31). Within the tutorial literature, Africa is repeatedly pathologized in its state formation course of which denigrates its governance, rejects its legitimacy and thus finds causes for perceived state failure innate in African tradition, whereas dismissing historic path dependencies. Is an essentialist idea akin to neopatrimonialism, which makes an attempt to clarify all of Africa’s predicaments by way of a Western-informed studying of Weber, helpful in explaining an equally loaded idea akin to state failure in Africa? However the governance challenges that many African states face, this essay argues that neopatrimonialism as a common concept to mirror all of the challenges African states face doesn’t present an sufficient analytical device for understanding governance issues in Africa, and thus erroneously informs theses of African state failure. The state failure body itself, by way of a misreading of Weber’s ideal-types, proves insufficient in characterising numerous governance points. The essay thus challenges the view that African states are failing however places forth another framework which posits that the present neopatrimonial constructions prevalent in Africa and their unfavourable penalties on governance needs to be seen as state formation processes through which neopatrimonial constructions are a formative however not deadly half. As a result of restricted scope of this essay, the evaluation prioritises a conceptual evaluation of neopatrimonialism and state failure, being conscious of the pitfalls on the subject of the generalisation of African states and the necessity for case research to substantiate the arguments made within the evaluation.

Neopatrimonialism and State Failure: Restricted Ideas

Neopatrimonialism as an idea emerged in an try to deal with the elusiveness of state-society boundaries and personal appropriation of public authority and items. Although it isn’t a uniquely African phenomenon, neopatrimonial concept has dominated the reason of up to date African politics (Nyaluke, 2014, p. 141). Inside such a system, elites use their formal positions to fulfill casual calls for of their shoppers on which their efficient energy rests (Wiuff Moe, 2010, p. 13). Over time, the regimes change into more and more autocratic, unresponsive and violent. The time period patrimonialism was coined by Max Weber (1978, pp. 212–240) who used it to classify numerous forms of state rationalities. Weber’s ideal-type of the fashionable, legal-rational state is characterised by a scarcity of non-public relationships and private affect on the distribution of state means (Schlichte, 2005, p. 169). The prefix “neo” implies a break with conventional patrimonialism and describes a state through which the patrimonial and legal-rational bureaucracies are operating concurrently (Bratton & van de Walle, 1997, p. 62). Neopatrimonialism poses challenges to governance and institutional legitimacy; the focus of energy and the abuse of state assets for private positive factors hinders efforts of institutionalisation of order and socio-economic growth, and inhibits state legitimacy and capability (von Soest, 2007, pp. 3–5). Nevertheless, patrimonial rule can represent a system of respectable governance to the extent that the majority residents profit from reciprocities inside the community. It’s not the unfavourable results that neopatrimonial practices have on governance that deserves important evaluation, however the idea’s intrinsic assumption to clarify the whole lot “distinctive” to Africa, together with state failure.

For the reason that Nineties, and significantly after 9/11, state failure has been the dominant narrative within the worldwide group’s discourse on Africa and has been cited as a consequence for a lot of types of political, social and financial misery (Tusalem, 2016, p. 445). State failure has been framed as a safety risk for the failed state’s inhabitants in addition to for regional and worldwide peace and safety (Wai, 2012, p. 29). Robert Jackson’s definition is maybe the widest used description of state failure. He defines failed states as states who “can’t or is not going to safeguard minimal civil circumstances for his or her populations: home peace, regulation and order, and good governance” (Jackson, 2000, p. 296). Good governance presupposes legitimacy, which in flip is derived from the capabilities a state performs (Wai, 2012, p. 30). Although the idea might have its deserves, it’s contentious and, above all, based mostly on the premises of Weber’s legal-rational ideal-type, and thus carries an inherent deterministic facet. The core capabilities of the state are expressed in relation to the Western concept of the state (Hill, 2005, p. 148). The state failure debate thus obstructs the truth that the state is a political assemble erected from historic energy struggles and thus can’t be dissociated from its foundations (Karlsson, 2015, p. 1), and is blind to practices that generate statehood even in occasions of disaster (Perazzone, 2019, pp. 165–166).

Neopatrimonialism as a Trigger for State Failure in Africa

Within the scholarly literature, neopatrimonialism is seen as a elementary and distinctive characteristic of African politics in addition to important to governance and legitimacy challenges in Africa (Wai, 2012, p. 32). Many African regimes have supplanted the function of the inherited colonial establishments for the advantages of an exclusionary group. That is typically seen as facilitating state failure (Karlsson, 2015, p. 3), because the neopatrimonial community has predatory tendencies that erode state constructions and assets. Certainly, the top-down method that was tailored by many African international locations post-independence led to a monopolisation of political energy. This slowed down financial development and accelerated the deep-seated disaster within the Seventies (The Economist, 2012). Nevertheless, you will need to be aware a number of shortcomings that each ideas share. Firstly, neopatrimonialism in addition to state failure comply with a round logic: neopatrimonialism is the trigger in addition to the impact of state failure (Wai, 2012, p. 32). Secondly, each ideas try to clarify many distinct socio-political realities, from the type of the state, to the behaviour of politicians in addition to growth failures and civil wars. Lastly, Nyaluke (2014, p. 162) notes that neopatrimonialism and state failure search to justify chosen options of the outward manifestation of African politics because the very essence of the state.

Whether or not the governance crises might be known as state failure is debatable given the “unfinished nature” of African states inherited by colonial rule. Cooper’s (2002, pp. 5–6) “gatekeeper state” describes the colonial legacy of the patrimonial state in Africa, to confer with a type of authorities through which the leaders of weak states rule through the interface between their nation and the remainder of the world, whereas having difficulties in increasing their rule past their capitals. Neopatrimonial networks have survived to this present day in states that had not been absolutely constructed throughout colonial rule (Pitcher et al., 2009, pp. 127–128) however are held to the usual of idealised visions of life in Western states. States who’re nonetheless negotiating elementary elements of statehood are labelled as failed and never “appropriate” for legal-rational bureaucracies (Hill, 2005, p. 148). Therefore, the elemental difficulty with using neopatrimonialism to explain failures in African states just isn’t the idea’s saturation however the normative assumptions which are used to measure governance methods prevalent in African states in opposition to the legal-rational methods seemingly well-established within the West (Wai, 2012, p. 33). Weber himself by no means ranked the patrimonial, legal-rational and charismatic states, and patrimonialism was not a synonym for a weak state. Neither is there an evolutionary logic to his categorisation (Pitcher et al., 2009, pp. 126, 149–150). Weber was cautious to pose his idea of the state as popping out of the fashionable European expertise and didn’t intend its software for politics exterior Europe (Migdal & Schlichte, 2005, p. 3). Nevertheless, Weber’s definition has been misinterpret to the extent that the legal-rational ideal-type (which Western states ascribe to) is seen as key to profitable statehood and that the perceived distance to the ideal-type determines state failure (Wai, 2012, p. 29). Advocates of the neopatrimonialism and state failure discourses use summary methodologies based mostly on Western state formation processes, from which ideas are deduced to prescribe norms of state rationality for political realities that deviate from the legal-rational ideal-type. This imposition obstructs historic contexts inside which states emerge, whereas concealing the systemic and structural energy relations through which they’re entangled (Wai, 2012, p. 35).

State Failure or State Formation?

The concept that neopatrimonial politics is essentially anti-development lacks historicity, as neopatrimonial networks aren’t distinctive to African states in growth, however a common attribute of states present process institutionalisation of order (Di John, 2010, p. 20). Moreover, the discourse makes implicit assumptions that Africa can solely grow to be modernity by buying legal-rational authority by way of Western traits, versus states exercising patrimonial authority, which is dismissed as by some means “not deserving” of statehood (Wai, 2012, p. 34). There’s a tendency to reify states as “objects” somewhat than kind of steady political processes. It’s not present African tradition that drives neopatrimonialism, as Chabal and Daloz (1999, p. xxi) declare, however the colonial legacy of African states that’s not often thought of however elementary to explaining the dynamics inside which states in Africa have been constituted and proceed to be reconfigured. Tusalem (2016, p. 445) argues that the very existence and persistence of state failure can’t be dissociated from the historic processes marked by the African historical past of colonialism and its institutional legacies. Social, political and financial crises which are labelled as state failure, as this essay argues, are literally a part of an extended technique of state formation which has been misinterpreted.

The dominant narrative concerning the state in Africa is that the state is an imported product, introduced arbitrarily upon Africa. This discourse is rife with normative assumptions and never helpful because it obstructs what the historic longue durée view reveals: the crises and resistance in Africa are a part of a wrestle for a state formation course of. State formation was a really lengthy, gradual and violent course of in Europe. The developmental outcomes of those processes weren’t all the time instantly revealed (Di John, 2010, p. 22). After merely 50 years of independence, most African states are nonetheless in a technique of state formation as they’re being reconfigured and contested. The blurred strains between the personal and the general public aren’t definitive and might be renegotiated. Thus, ultimately, it relies on the size of time interval considered as as to whether a state’s destiny is seen as a narrative of failure or of development. State establishments are by no means indefinitely fashioned (de Sardan, 2005, p. 16), with recessions, gaps and, at occasions, advances, a realisation that proves the fragility of the idea of state failure itself. 


The choice framework put ahead on this essay challenges the ideas of neopatrimonialism and state failure, that are regularly used to guage crises that African regimes have undergone. As an alternative, the framework that state formation gives places the post-independence expertise of many African international locations right into a historic perspective, permitting for a longue durée view on states’ historic trajectories. In doing so, it explored the argument that neopatrimonialism explains all African politics together with state failure, earlier than concluding with the declare that what is often seen as state failure needs to be seen as state formation processes that are nonetheless ongoing in lots of African states.

African political processes have generally been misinterpret and singled out. Whereas neopatrimonialism hinders a extra complete and fewer value-driven evaluation of the underlying causes of the challenges which are generally referred to when invoking “state failure”, the state failure body itself proves limiting when describing these challenges. The state failure discourse has lengthy been the dominant, although insufficient narrative of governance crises in Africa. It’s time to give technique to extra correct ideas and to explain African states as what they’re – together with their governance and legitimacy crises – and never what they must be.


Bratton, M., & van de Walle, N. (1997). Democratic Experiments in Africa: Regime Transitions in Comparative Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge College Press.

Chabal, P., & Daloz, J.-P. (1999). Africa Works: Dysfunction as Political Instrument. Oxford: James Currey Publishers.

Cooper, F. (2002). Africa since 1940: The Previous of the Current. Cambridge: Cambridge College Press.

de Sardan, J.-P. O. (2005). Anthropology and Growth: Understanding Up to date Social Change (1st version). London ; New York: Zed Books.

Di John, J. (2010). The Idea, Causes and Penalties of Failed States: A Vital Overview of the Literature and Agenda for Analysis with Particular Reference to Sub-Saharan Africa. The European Journal of Growth Analysis, 22(1), 10–30.

Hill, J. (2005). Past the Different? A postcolonial critique of the failed state thesis. African Identities, 3(2), 139–154.

Jackson, R. (2000). The World Covenant: Human Conduct in a World of States. Oxford: Oxford College Press.

Karlsson, M. (2015). The State Failure Debate and the Uncared for Elite. Offered on the Australian Political Research Affiliation Annual Convention 2015: The Way forward for Politics and Political Science.

Migdal, J. S., & Schlichte, Okay. (2005). Rethinking the State. In Okay. Schlichte (Ed.), The Dynamics of States: The Formation and Crises of State Domination (pp. 1–40). New York, USA: Routledge.

Nyaluke, D. (2014). The African Foundation of Democracy and Politics for the Frequent Good. Taiwan Journal of Democracy, 10(2), 141–164.

Perazzone, S. (2019). “Shouldn’t You Be Instructing Me?” State Mimicry within the Congo. Worldwide Political Sociology, 13(2), 161–180.

Pitcher, A., Moran, M. H., & Johnston, M. (2009). Rethinking Patrimonialism and Neopatrimonialism in Africa. African Research Overview, 52(1), 125–156.

Schlichte, Okay. (2005). Uganda – A State in Suspense. In Okay. Schlichte (Ed.), The Dynamics of States: The Formation and Crises of State Domination (pp. 161–182). New York, USA: Routledge.

The Economist. (2012, January 21). The rise of state capitalism. The Economist, 402(8768), 11–12.

Tusalem, R. F. (2016). The Colonial Foundations of State Fragility and Failure. Polity, 48(4), 445–495.

von Soest, C. (2007). How Does Neopatrimonialism Have an effect on the African State? The Case of Tax Assortment in Zambia. The Journal of Trendy African Research, 45(4).

Wai, Z. (2012). Neo-patrimonialism and the discourse of state failure in Africa. Overview of African Political Financial system, 39(131), 27–43.

Weber, M. (1978). Financial system and Society: An Define of Interpretive Sociology (G. Roth & C. Wittich, Eds.). Berkeley: College of California Press. Retrieved from

Wiuff Moe, L. (2010). Addressing state fragility in Africa: A must problem the established ‘knowledge’? [FIIA REPORT]. Helsinki: Finnish Institute of Worldwide Affairs. Retrieved from Finnish Institute of Worldwide Affairs web site:

Additional Studying on E-Worldwide Relations