ABSTRACT
'Neopatrimonialism' refers to the coexistence and interaction of formal and informal institutions or a widespread informal behavior within a formal polity such as a modern state. Neopatrimonialism is usually applied as an independent variable in research projects. The most recent operationalizations of neopatrimonialism focus on the political dimension of the concept, which means that they focus on only one dimension and tend to ignore the second: the administrative dimension. Ann Pitcher and her colleagues argue with the example of Botswana that liberal democracy and neopatrimonialism are compatible: the political regime is 'neopatrimonial, yet democratic'. Since neopatrimonialism can have different empirical manifestations–closer to patrimonialism or closer to legal-rational domination–and these may have different effects, authors have suggested the formation of subtypes in order to increase the analytical power of the concept. Neopatrimonialism is still characterized by several conceptual weaknesses: it lacks a clear and useful definition; there is no delineation to other related concepts; and it is poorly operationalized.
