Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
4
Analytical framework
The last chapter provided the broad background and the problem statement of this study. This
chapter elaborates the analytical framework developed to address the research questions. Fried
land and Alford (1991: 250f) formulate a precise prerequisite for social theory: “An adequate
social theory must work at three levels of analysis individuals competing and negotiating,
organizations in conflict and coordination, and institutions in contradiction and interdepen
dency.” To meet this objective, I combine several analytical approaches as well as empirical
methods to ensure that all three levels are covered by the analysis. Chapters 4.2 4.4 introduce
into the three approaches used to analyze politics: policy analysis, implementation research,
and political anthropology. Following, guiding assumptions that evolve from these analytical
approaches are presented (ch. 4.5). But before turning to these approaches, the first section of
this chapter will deal with the basic analytical category for analysis: neopatrimonialism.
4.1
Neopatrimonialism
The term neopatrimonialism is a conceptual enhancement of the Weberian ideal type of patri
monialism. He defines patrimonialism as a category of traditional authority (in opposition to
rational legal authority) where rule is solely based on personal accountability to the sovereign
without a clear demarcation of public and private and a considerable range of arbitrariness. In
contrast to gerontocracy and patriarchalism the two other ideal types of traditional authority
the patrimonial leader has personal administrative (and military) staff at his disposal (Weber
1976: 130 140). It is important to note that for Weber the concept of 'authority' not only refers
to the legitimacy of power but also the way governance and mechanisms of bureaucracy are
carried out (Médard 1982: 178). Neopatrimonialism is a further development of this concept,
initially used to frame the African postcolonial states. It refers to political regimes where mod
ern bureaucracy, formal democratic institutions and separation of powers coexist with patri
monial practices (Médard 1982; Erdmann 2001; Wimmer 2000; Erdmann, Engel 2006). Like
patrimonialism, neopatrimonialism refers to an ideal type. However, no uncontested definition
has evolved until today. Erdmann and Engel (2006) even criticize that it has developed into a
catchall concept. Most scholars refer to clientelism, patron client relations, personal rule, and
corruption on the one hand and a legal rational bureaucratic dimension on the other hand.
There is however disagreement with regard to the weighting of these individual features. In
addition, while some conceptualize neopatrimonial states as a hybrid regime type (e.g. Erd
mann 2001), others categorize it as a special type of authoritarian rule (e.g. Ishiyama 2002).
Following Wimmer (2000: 126), I define neopatrimonial regimes as characterized by formal
democratic structures in combination with personalistic and autocratic leadership, clientelistic
politics, and endemic corruption. The explicit inclusion of the formal democratic structures
allows us to assess how these two dimensions (the rational legal and the patrimonial) relate to
Search WWH ::
Custom Search