Applying Varieties of Political Settlements Theory to Make Sense of State-Led Economic Transformation Outcomes in Post-2000 Rwanda

Political settlements theory (PST) has become a popular framework, widely applied by scholars to assess economic and social development trajectories of developing countries. Recently, conceptual advancements have led to a schism in PST: there is now the Khanian power structure and the Kelsallian elite agreement school of thought. This paper first offers a systematic direct comparison of these two frameworks, teasing out significant differences in definitions, typologies, and underlying premises as well as a common core that distinguishes PST from other development theories. It then applies both frameworks to the case of post-2000 Rwanda to test their ability to make sense of the country’s fascinating trajectory. It finds that both varieties go a long way in explaining Rwanda’s path and offer complementary insights. However, to fully capture Rwanda’s evolution, both exogenous factors and a further component not part of any PST framework –maintaining political control as the key driver of ruling elite behaviour– need to be included. This caveat illustrates the necessity to go beyond any framework to inductively understand the particular development journey of any specific country.