Comparative political economy: Institutions and good governance Hannes Baumann

Overview “Governance” and state-society relations Theoretical approaches: – Marx – Historical institutionalism/Weber – Post-modernism/Foucault Overview of Arab economies in the 20 th century

Governance and Good Governance: Varying Definitions Governance “The traditions and institutions by which authority in a country is exercised” – Kaufman et al The way “ … power is exercised through a country’s economic, political, and social institutions.” – the World Bank’s PRSP Handbook. “The exercise of economic, political, and administrative authority to manage a country’s affairs at all levels. It comprises mechanisms, processes, and institutions through which citizens and groups articulate their interests, exercise their legal rights, meet their obligations, and mediate their differences.” – UNDP.

InstitutionWhat makes governance “good”? World BankVoice and Accountability Political Stability and Absence of Violence Government Effectiveness Regulatory Quality Rule of Law Control of Corruption OECDParticipation Transparency Accountability rule of law Effectiveness Equity etc. UNDP (AHDR)Participation Rule of law Transparency Responsiveness (to stakeholders) Equity Effectiveness and efficiency Accountability Strategic vision

MENA and Comparators: Governance Indicators, 2002

“Good governance” not a “good concept” lacks parsimony. Unlike good concepts, good governance has endless definitions, and we always need the details of each to understand if we are talking about the same thing. lacks differentiation. Well-governed countries often sound a lot like functioning liberal democracies, for instance, and it is not clear how they differ. coherence. Its many possible characteristics — from respect for human rights to efficient banking regulations — do not clearly belong together. lacks theoretical utility. It confuses, rather than aids, in the formulation of theory and the related project of hypothesis testing, not least because the concept is so fluid that analysts can easily define it in the way that best fits their data.

Republic and monarchy, oil and non-oil Revolutionary republicMonarchy OilAlgeria, IraqSaudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE Non-oilEgypt, Syria, TunisiaJordan, Morocco Special cases: Lebanon (“consociational” democracy) Libya (highly personalistic) Yemen (divided into communist and “tribal” republics)

Phases of development 1950s and 1960s: – Nationalisation and land reform in revolutionary republics => breaking power of landed elite, commercial bourgeoisie; import substitution – Oil monarchies: emerging oil states; merchant-ruler alliances – Non-oil monarchies: merchant-ruler alliances 1970s: – Revolutionary republics: “infitah” (trade opening) but little or no privatisation – Oil monarchies: Oil boom, rise of “rentier state” – Non-oil monarchies: “second order rentierism” in Jordan, “Morocconisation” in Morocco 1980s: – Crises and SAPs in revolutionary republics (except Syria), Jordan, Morocco – Attempts at retrenchment of rentier state in oil monarchies 1990s-2000s: – Deepening neoliberalism in most countries, even Syria – Second oil-boom after 2000 => “internationalisation” of Arab capital 2011: “Arab spring”

Conclusions “Good governance” not useful for study of state- society relations => historical institutionalism (state and society); Studying single case studies Relating case studies to wider “patterns” or characterisations of state-society relations: rentier state, developmental state, “failed state” etc. Gave an overview of historical development of Arab state; easy to classify in 1950s and 1960s but increasingly more difficult! Important to know the histories of state-society relations to understand where Arab states are going.