The dissemination of the concept of neopatrimonialism has become closely associated with the discussion of politics and polities in Africa. In contrast with the Africanist and Latin-American emphasis on institutionalisation and bureaucratisation, the South East Asian literature generally focused on the nexus of state-business relations and interactions. Underlying concern at the emergence of competitive and developmental capitalist states also prompted the adoption of a specific lexicography, illustrated by references to oligarchic patrimonialism, crony capitalism and even ‘ersatz’ capitalism.
These regional variations in interpreting the interplay between private interests and public policies ultimately highlight a key assumption, largely overlooked in the Africa debates until recently: a state can be neopatrimonial and developing if not developmental. An operational distinction needs to be drawn between patrimonial practices within the state and the patrimonialisation of the entire state. At a time when Africa is shedding the stigma of a 'hopeless' and dispensable region, systematic depictions of the African neopatrimonial state into a quasi-ideal type of the anti developmental state no longer hold. While the identification of developmental states remains a highly contested topic, the simultaneous emergence and empowerment of entrepreneurs no longer revolves exclusively around the dispensation of state resources by the ruler and his cronies.
