Patronalism and Limited Access Social Order: The Case of Ukraine

Patronalism is one of the forms of a limited access social order (LAO) or natural state. An LAO is defined by North et al. as a social order that “solve[s] the problem of violence by granting political elites privileged control over parts of the economy, each getting some share of the rents,” as opposed to an open access order (OAO) that “control[s] the problem of violence through open access and competition.” ¹ In terms of the regime classification offered by Magyar and Madlovics, ² liberal democracy corresponds to an OAO, while all the other kinds of regimes, patronal or not, are versions of an LAO. For instance, a communist dictatorship is an extreme form of what North et al. dubbed a “basic” LAO ³ where no organizations can exist outside of the state. Under such a dictatorship, political and business entrepreneurship is illegal and subject to criminal prosecution, and all major kinds of incomes can be qualified as rents since no market competition exists and incomes are normatively stipulated by the state. In North et al.’s taxonomy, the remaining types of post-communist political regimes considered by Magyar and Madlovics fall into the category of “mature LAOs,” in which a variety of different organizations exists outside of the state but whose opportunities for growth above a certain level are restricted. Three of these categories of regimes are patronal: patronal autocracy, patronal democracy, and oligarchic anarchy.