E ISSN
BETWEEN CLIENTELISM AND PATRIMONIALISM: LOCAL POLITICS OF THE PHILIPPINES AND INDONESIA
Abstract
Erik Kuhonta, a Southeast Asian expert, describe in his article on institution of the states in Southeast Asia that among the spectrum of clientelism and regal-rational bureaucracy, only Singapore and Malaysia could be considered as having an administrative system of rule and law based – of administrative state – the closest to being labeled as legal-rational bureaucracy. Among others he observed, the Philippines is categorized as a patrimonial system, whilst Thailand and Indonesia are recognized as in the middle, with some patrimonial practices still occurring but functioning bureaucracy legal system. This study tries to find the answer to these questions: How do the clientelism and patrimonialism practices in democratized Indonesia and the Philippines local politics? The study concludes that both in Indonesia and the Philippines patronage politics is very much marring the democratization process, economic development, welfare parity, and bureaucratic reform through practices of various kinds of clientelistics approach. Democratization is not a strategy for the elimination of clientelism and patrimonialism, moreover we see meritocratic and Weberian legal-rational bureaucracy still existing in countries with clientelism and patronage politics, such as Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea, or in countries that do not need full-fledge democracy, such as Singapore and Malaysia. We could even see clientelism being regulated in more developed democracy. This study shows that in countries that has clientelism practices yet do not have the effect of corruption and could manage poverty reduction program has society of better economic welfare and higher education background.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Brender, A. & Allan. (2009). Consolidation of New Democracy, Mass Attitudes and Clientelism. American Economic Review, 99(2), 304-309. https://doi.org/ 10.1257/aer.99.2.304
Brinkerhoff, D.W., & Goldsmith, A. A. (2002). Clientelism, Patrimonialism and Democratic Governance: An Overview and Framework for Assessment and Programming. Management Systems International, 1–49.
Boudreau, V. (2009). Elections, Repression, and Authoritarian Survival in Post-transition Indonesia and the Philippines. The Pacific Review, 22(2), 233-253. https://doi.org/10.1080/09512740902815359
Bubandt, N. (2006). Sorcery, corruption, and the dangers of democracy in Indonesia. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, .12, 413-431. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9655.2006.00298.x
Bryman, A (2008). Social Research Method. Oxford University Press, 380.
Case, W. (2009). Low-quality Democracy and Varied Authoritarianism: Elites and Regimes in Southeast Asia Today. The Pacific Review, 22(3), 255-259. https://doi.org/10.1080/09512740903068214
Choi, N. (2007). Local Elections and Democracy in Indonesia: The Riau Archipelago. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 37, 326-345. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472330701408650
Davidson, J.S. (2009). Dilemmas of Democratic Consolidation in Indonesia. The Pacific Review, 22(3), 293-310. https://doi.org/10.1080/09512740903068354
Economist, T. (2013). Democracy Index 2012: Democracy at a standstill. Report from The Economist Intelligence Unit.
Erdmann, G. & Engel, U. (2006). Neopatrimonialism Revisited – Beyond a Catch-All Concept. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.909183
Fernandez-Collado, C., & Roniger, L. (1991). Hierarchy and Trust in Modern Mexico and Brazil. Contemporary Sociology, 20(6), 877. https://doi.org/10.2307/2076161
Friedman, A.L. 2007. Consolidation or Withering Away of Democracy? Political Changes in Thailand and Indonesia. Asian Affairs: An American Review, 33(4), 195-216. https://doi.org/10.3200/AAFS.33.4.195-216
Fukuoka, Y. (2013). Oligarchy and Democracy in Post-Suharto Indonesia. Political Studies Review, 11, 52-64. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1478-9302.2012.00286.x
Hermann, J.D. (2010). Neo-Patrimonialism and Subnational Authoritarianism in Mexico: The Case of Oaxaca. Journal of Politics in Latin America, (2), 85-112. https://doi.org/10.1177/1866802X1000200204
Hilgers, T. (2008). Causes and Consequences of Political Clientelism: Mexico’s PRD in Comparative Perspective. Latin American Politics and Society, 50(4), 123–153. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-2456.2008.00032.x
Imbens, G. & Lemieux, T. (2008). Regression Discontinuity Designs: A Guide to Practice. Journal of Econometrics, 142(2), 615–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2007.05.001
Keefer, P. (2007). Clientelism, Credibility, and the Policy Choices of Young Democracies. American Journal of Political Science, 51(4), 804–821. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00282.x
Kuhonta, M.E., Slater, D. & Vu, T. (2008). Southeast Asia in Political Science: Theory, Region, and Qualitative Analysis (review). Stanford University Press. https://www.eastwestcenter.org/publications/southeast-asia-political-science-theory-region-and-qualitative-analysis
Lande, C.H. (2000). Review of Booty Capitalism: The Politics of Banking in the Philippines. The American Political Science Review, 94(1), 216–217.
Lee, D. (2008). Randomized Experiments from Non-random Selection in U.S. House Elections. Journal of Econometrics, 142(2), 675–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2007.05.004
Montiel, C.J. (2012). Philippine Political Culture and Governance. https://www.ombudsman.gov.ph/UNDP4/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Philippine-Political-Culture-and-Governance.pdf
Nowak, T.C. & Snyder, K.A. (1974). Clientelist Politics in the Philippines: Integration or Instability?. The American Political Science Review, 68(3), 1147-1170. https://doi.org/10.2307/1959153
Pak K. & Horng, V. (2007). Accountability and neo-patrimonialism in Cambodia: A critical literature review. Cambodia Development Resource Institute.
Platzdasch, B. (2011). Indonesia in 2010: Moving on from the Democratic Honeymoon. ISEAS, 73-90. https://doi.org/10.1355/9789814345040-008
Powell, J.D. (1970). Peasant Society and Clientelist Politics. American Political Science Review, 64(2), 411–425. https://doi.org/10.2307/1953841
Ramage, D.E. (2007). Indonesia: Democracy First, Good Governance Later. ISEAS, 135-157. https://doi.org/10.1353/saa.2007.0016
Sidel, J. T. (2005). Bossism and Democracy in the Philippines, Thailand and Indonesia: Towards an Alternative Framework for the Study of ‘Local Strongmen.’ In J. Harriss, K. Stokke, & O. Törnquist (Eds.), Politicising Democracy (pp. 51–74). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230502802_3
Simandjuntak, D. (2012). Gifts and Promises: Patronage Democracy in a Decentralised Indonesia. European Journal of East Asian Studies, 11(1), 99–126. https://doi.org/10.1163/15700615-20120008
Simbulan, D. (2005). The Modern Principalia. Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press.
Tahyar, B. (2012). Patrimonialism, Power and the Politics of Judicial Reform in Post-Soeharto Indonesia: an Institutional Analysis. PhD Thesis at SOAS, Univ. of London. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0001972000021033
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24198/jwp.v8i1.42602
Copyright (c) 2023 Ujang Komarudin, Pitut Pramuji
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
JWP (Jurnal Wacana Politik) Indexed By:
21.png)
Published By:
Departement of Political Science
Campus of Faculty of Social and Political Science
Universitas Padjajaran, Building D, 2nd floor
Jl. Raya Sumedang Km.21, Jatinangor, Sumedang
Creation is distributed below Lisensi Creative Commons Atribusi 4.0 Internasional.