Abstract

Current usages of the terms patrimonial and neopatrimonial in the context of Africa are conceptually problematical and amount to a serious misreading of Weber. His use of the term patrimonial delineated a legitimate type of authority, not a type of regime, and included notions of reciprocity and voluntary compliance between rulers and the ruled. Those reciprocities enabled subjects to check the actions of rulers, which most analyses of (neo)patrimonialism overlook. We apply these insights to a case study of Botswana and suggest that scholars reconsider the application of Weber’s concepts to African states.

pdf

Additional Information

ISSN
1555-2462
Print ISSN
0002-0206
Pages
pp. 125-156
Launched on MUSE
2009-04-30
Open Access
No
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.