To read this content please select one of the options below:

Colonialism, Neopatrimonialism, and Hybrid State Formation in Malaysia and the Philippines

Patrimonial Capitalism and Empire

ISBN: 978-1-78441-758-1, eISBN: 978-1-78441-757-4

Publication date: 31 March 2015

Abstract

In Weberian scholarship, conventional wisdom views the corruption of the modern rational-legal bureaucratic state by local patrimonialisms as an endemic feature in non-Western postcolonial state formation. The resultant neopatrimonial state is often blamed for the social, political, and economic ills plaguing these societies. This essay challenges conventional wisdom and argues that neopatrimonialism is a process of hybrid state formation that has its origins in the cultural politics of colonial state building. This is achieved by drawing on a comparative study of British Malaya and the American Philippines, which offers contrastive trajectories of colonialism and state formation in Southeast Asia.

Because of the precariousness of state power due to local resistance and class conflicts, colonial state building involved the deepening of patron–client relations for political control and of rational-legal bureaucracy for social development. In the process, local political relations were marked and displaced as traditional patrimonialisms distinguished from the new modern center. Through native elite collaborators and paternal-populist discourses, new patron–client relations were institutionalized to connect the colonial state to the native periphery. However, colonial officials with different political beliefs and ethnographic world views in the center competed over native policy and generated cyclical crises between patron-clientelist excess and bureaucratic entrepreneurship.

Instead of the prevailing view that postcolonial states are condemned to their colonial design, and that authoritarian rule favors economic development, my study shows that non-Western state formation is non-linear and follows a cyclical pattern between predation and developmentalism, the excesses of which could be moderated.

Keywords

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgment

I am grateful to Julia Adams, Gary Hamilton, Stephen Hanson, John R. Hall, Randall Collins, Richard Lachmann, and Kerry Ward for their incisive comments and criticisms.

Citation

Goh, D.P.S. (2015), "Colonialism, Neopatrimonialism, and Hybrid State Formation in Malaysia and the Philippines", Patrimonial Capitalism and Empire (Political Power and Social Theory, Vol. 28), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 165-190. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0198-871920150000028007

Publisher

:

Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2015 Emerald Group Publishing Limited