Government and public administration

EVALUATION OF TRANSFORMATION APPROACHES TO THE DEFINITION OF NEOPATRIMONIALISM

Received: 15.06.2016 Published: 15.06.2016

UDC: 321.65 EDN: ZXJEAD

Full text

Abstract

Purpose. The purpose of the presented study is the evaluation of the transformation of approaches to the definition of neopatrimonialism through an analysis of the main lines of the contradictions between researchers in the interpretation of neopatrimonial type of political domination and identification of the concept kernel against which disputes are minimal. Methodology. Comparative qualitative study of texts, monographs and scientific articles published in the Russian and English languages, on selected topics. Meaningful comparison of the approaches to the interpretation of a neopatrimonial type of political domination was conducted in line with the neoinstitutional method. Scientific novelty. The most important approaches to the definition of neopatrimonialism were analyzed from several perspectives: relationship with the basic Weberian category of a patrimonial type of political domination, the role of bureaucracy functioning on the basis of rational-legal procedures, explanation of the meaning of the prefix «neo» in the interpretation of the concept. Results. Based on a critical review of the basic approaches the author formulated his own definition of neopatrimonialism, determined the vectors of research necessary to improve heuristic potential of the concept.

Keywords

How to cite

Для цитирования:

Мельников К. Оценка трансформации подходов к определению неопатримониализма // Вопросы управления. 2016. Т. 43, № 6. С. 13–22.

For citation:

Melnikov K. EVALUATION OF TRANSFORMATION APPROACHES TO THE DEFINITION OF NEOPATRIMONIALISM // Management Issues. 2016. Vol. 43, no. 6. P. 13–22.

How to Cite

Melnikov K. EVALUATION OF TRANSFORMATION APPROACHES TO THE DEFINITION OF NEOPATRIMONIALISM // Management Issues. 2016. Vol. 43, no. 6. P. 13–22.

References

  1. Фисун А.А. К переосмыслению постсоветской политики: неопатримониальная интерпретация // Политическая концептология. 2010. № 4. С. 158-187.
  2. Weber M. Economy and Society. An Outline of Interpretive Sociology / Ed. by G. Roth and C. Wittich. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978.
  3. Bratton M., van de Walle N. Democratic experiments in Africa. Regime Transitions in comparative perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
  4. Chabal P., Daloz J-P. Africa Works. Disorder as political instrument. Oxford: James Currey, 1999.
  5. Joseph R.A. Democracy and Prebendal Politics in Nigeria: The Rise and Fall of the Second Republic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
  6. Le Vine V.T. African Patrimonial Regimes in Comparative Perspective // Journal of Modern African Studies. 1980. Vol. 18. № 4. Pp. 657-673.
  7. Roett R. Brazil: Politics in a Patrimonial Society. New York: Praeger, 1984.
  8. Zabludovsky G. The Reception and Utility of Max Weber's Concept of Patrimonialism in Latin America // International Sociology. 1989. Vol. 4. № 1. Pp. 51-66.
  9. Remmer K.L. Neopatrimonialism: The Politics of Military Rule in Chile, 1973-1987 // Comparative Politics. 1989. Vol. 21. № 2. Pp. 149-170.
  10. Crouch H. Patrimonialism and Military Rule in Indonesia // World Politics. 1979. Vol. 31. № 4. Pp. 571-587.
  11. Hutchcroft P. D. Oligarchs and Cronies in the Philippine State: The Politics of Patrimonial Plunder // World Politics. 1991. Vol. 43.№ 3. Pp. 414-450.
  12. Фисун А. Постсоветские неопатримониальные режимы: генезис, особенности, типология // Отечественные записки. 2007. № 6. С. 8-28.
  13. Bendix R. Max Weber. An Intellectual Portrait. London: Methuen, 1966. 465 p.
  14. Roth G. Personal Rulership, Patrimonialism, and Empire Building in the New States // World Politics. 1968. Vol. 20. № 2. Pp. 194-206.
  15. Theobald R. Patrimonialism // World Politics. 1982. Vol. 34. № 4. Pp. 548-559.
  16. Eisenstadt S.N. Traditional Patrimonialism and Modern Neopatrimonialism. London: Sage, 1973. 95 p.
  17. Эйзенштадт Ш. Революция и преобразование обществ. М.: Аспект-пресс, 1999. 416 с.
  18. Erdman G., Engel U. Neopatrimonialism reconsidered: critical review and elaboration of an elusive concept // Commonwealth & Comparative Politics. 2007.Vol. 45. № 1. Pp. 95-119.
  19. Теобальд Р. Патримониализм / пер. с англ. А. Фисуна // Прогнозис. 2007. № 2. С. 166-176.
  20. Carothers T. The End of the Transition Paradigm // Journal of Democracy. 2002. Vol. 13. № 1. P. 5-21.
  21. Me'dard J.F. The underdeveloped state in Africa: political clientelism or neo-patrimonialismin // Private Patronage and Public Power / Ed. by C. Clapham. London: Frances Pinter, 1982. Pp. 162-189.
  22. Clapham C. Clientelism and the state // Private Patronage and Public Power / Ed. by C. Clapham. London: Frances Pinter, 1982. Pp. 1-35.