# Patrimonialism

Part of the Politics series :
Basic forms of government :
List of forms · List of countries :
Source of power
Democracy (rule by many)
Demarchy
Direct
Economic
Liberal
Representative
Social
Socialist
Others
Oligarchy (rule by few)
Anocracy
Aristocracy
Gerontocracy
Kleptocracy
Kritarchy
Meritocracy
Noocracy
Particracy
Plutocracy
Stratocracy
Technocracy
Theocracy
Autocracy (rule by one)
Despotism
Dictatorship
Military dictatorship
Tyranny
Anarchy (rule by none)
Anarchism
Free association
Stateless :
Power ideology
MonarchyRepublic (socio-political ideologies)
Absolute
Communist
Constitutional
Directorial
Legalist
Parliamentary
Presidential
Semi-presidential
AuthoritarianLibertarian (socio-economic ideologies)
Anarchism
Colonialism
Communism
Despotism
Distributism
Fascism
Feudalism
Socialism
Totalitarianism
Tribalism
ReligiousSecular
State religion
Secular state
Separation of church and state
State atheism
GlobalLocal (geo-cultural ideologies)
City-state
Intergovernmental organisation
National government
World government
Nationalism
Internationalism
Globalism :
Power structure
Unitarism
Unitary state
Empire
Principality
Client state
Associated state
Dependent territory
Dominion
Protectorate
Puppet state
Puppet monarch
Satellite state
Self-governing colony
Tributary state
Buffer state
Vassal state
Viceroyalty
Federalism
Confederation
Devolution
Federation
Superstate
Supranational union
International relations
Small power
Middle power
Regional power
Emerging power
Great power
Superpower :
Related
Administrative division
Democracy indices
Democratic transition
Autocratization
Democratisation
Hybrid regimes :
Politics portal :
vte :
Patrimonialism is a form of governance in which the ruler governs on the basis of personal loyalties which are derived from patron-client relations, personal allegiances, kin ties and combinations thereof. Patrimonialism is closely related to corruption, opportunism and machine politics. It can contribute to underdevelopment and weak state capacity.
In contrast to many other systems of governance, the ruler does not derive legitimacy from personal charisma or a sense of mission, but primarily through the ability to dole out rewards and punishments. Initially coined by Max Weber, patrimonialism stands in contrast to rational-legal bureaucracies, as there is no objective of efficiency in public administration and government staff are not advanced based on merit, experience and training.
While patrimonialism is common in authoritarian regimes, it is not a necessary component of them. Democratic governments can also be characterized by patrimonial rule, in particular in fragile and underdeveloped states. Some scholars have found an increased prevalence of patrimonialism across the world in recent years, both in authoritarian and democratic states.

## Descriptions by scholars
### Max Weber

Julia Adams states: "In Weber's Economy and Society, patrimonialism mainly refers to forms of government that are based on rulers' family-households. The ruler's authority is personal-familial, and the mechanics of the household are the model for political administration. The concept of patrimonialism captures a distinctive style of regulation and administration that contrasts with Weber's ideal-typical rational-legal bureaucracy". She states that Weber has used patrimonialism to describe, among other systems, "estatist and absolutist politics of early modern Europe". For Weber, patriarchy is at the centre of patrimonalism and is its model and origin.

### Schmuel Eisenstadt

Schmuel Eistenstadt coined the term neopatrimonialism to distinguish historical patrimonial regimes from the "post-traditional" societies of Latin America, South Asia and the Middle East.

### Richard Pipes

Richard Pipes, a historian and Professor Emeritus of Russian history at Harvard University defines patrimonial as "a regime where the rights of sovereignty and those of ownership blend to the point of being indistinguishable, and political power is exercised in the same manner as economic power."

### J. I. Bakker

J. I. Bakker, a sociologist at the University of Guelph, states:
   The key focus in the model [patrimonialism] is the extent to which legitimate authority is based primarily on personal power exercised by the ruler, either directly or indirectly. The ruler may act alone or as a member of a powerful elite group or oligarchy. The ruler is not viewed as a tyrant. The structure of the Roman Catholic Church today is still patrimonial. Direct rule involves the ruler and a few key members of the ruler's household or staff maintaining personal control over every aspect of governance. If rule is indirect, there may be an intellectual or moral elite of priests or office holders as well as a military. The priestly group may invoke deity for the leader. The king, sultan, maharaja or other ruler is able to make independent decisions on an ad hoc basis, with little if any checks and balances. No individual or group is powerful enough to oppose the ruler consistently without, in turn, becoming the new patrimonial ruler. The ruler is recognized as the chief landholder and, in the extreme case, all of the land and its people are his domain. The legal authority of the ruler is largely unchallenged; there is no recognized body of case law or formal law, but there may be notions of etiquette and honor.

### Francis Fukuyama

In his The Origins of Political Order, Francis Fukuyama states on the matter:
   Natural human sociability is built around two principles, kin selection and reciprocal altruism. The principle of kin selection or inclusive fitness states that human beings will act altruistically toward genetic relatives (or individuals believed to be genetic relatives) in rough proportion to their shared genes. The principle of reciprocal altruism says that human beings will tend to develop relationships of mutual benefit or mutual harm as they interact with other individuals over time. Reciprocal altruism, unlike kin selection, does not depend on genetic relatedness; it does, however, depend on repeated, direct personal interaction and the trust relationships generated out of such interactions. These forms of social cooperation are the default ways human beings interact in the absence of incentives to adhere to other, more impersonal institutions. When impersonal institutions decay, these are the forms of cooperation that always reemerge because they are natural to human beings. What I have labeled patrimonialism is political recruitment based on either of these two principles. Thus, when bureaucratic offices were filled with the kinsmen of rulers at the end of the Han dynasty in China, when the Janissaries wanted their sons to enter the corps, or when offices were sold as heritable property in ancien régime France, a natural patrimonial principle was simply reasserting itself.

## Examples

Richard Pipes cited the Egyptian Ptolemies and the Attalids of Pergamon as early patrimonial monarchies, both successor states to Alexander the Great's empire.
Pipes argues that the Russia between the twelfth and seventeenth century, and with certain modifications until 1917, was a patrimonial system.
Jean Bodin described seigneurial monarchies in the Six Books of the Commonwealth (1576–1586), where the monarch owns all the land. He claimed that Turkey and Muscovy were the only European examples.
Indonesia, before and during the Suharto administration, is often cited as being patrimonial in its political-economy.
Randall Collins argued, based on Max Weber's definition, that organized crime groups like gangs and mafia are patrimonial political organizations, as contrasted with the bureaucratic nature of modern states.
Johnathan Rauch claimed that Narendra Modi, Viktor Orbán, Vladimir Putin, and Donald Trump (particularly during his second administration) were patrimonial due to what Rauch described as a refusal to follow national rules, norms, and institutions.