Patronage and Clientelism: Global Systems of Reciprocal Power and Influence, by DB Roberts, 2025
Patronage and clientelism reflect systems where personal relationships, loyalty, and informal exchanges drive power and access to resources, often bypassing formal systems of governance and merit-based processes.
Patronage and clientelism are political and social systems that operate through reciprocal exchanges of resources, favours, and loyalty between individuals or groups. Though often associated with emerging markets or developing countries, these systems are, in fact, present in varying degrees across all political landscapes, from the most ‘advanced’ democracies to autocratic regimes. Understanding patronage and clientelism is essential not only for grasping political dynamics in specific regions but also for recognizing the more subtle ways they manifest even in countries where institutional frameworks are ostensibly and putatively designed to prevent such behaviour.
In this post, we will explore the key characteristics of patronage and clientelism, examine how they function in different regions, and highlight their influence across the globe, including in Western democracies. It is easy, in our western exceptionalism and the Enlightenment hubris that feeds it, to believe the misrepresentation of democracy as entirely meritocratic. This blog talks about all areas of the world as historically and contemporaneously organised, to varying extents, along the lines of patronage and clientelism. It doesn’t cover the patriarchal determinism of this organizational precept, but you can read about that here. By the end, it should become clear that patronage and clientelism are not anomalies limited to ‘corrupt’ or ‘backward’ political systems; they are universal and integral aspects of how power is exercised globally, whether attached to politics, economics, business or, more usually, all three in cahoots. It's universal.
What Is Patronage and Clientelism?
At the core, patronage and clientelism is a relationship involving multiple reciprocal relationships of power and loyalty. In these systems, a patron (typically a person with access to resources, power, or influence) provides benefits to a client (usually someone of lower status), who reciprocates with political support, votes, or other forms of loyalty. This exchange often bypasses formal processes like legal institutions or merit-based systems, instead relying on personal networks, favours, and loyalty.
Patronage as a social norm in many former colonies precedes colonialism, with its roots embedded in pre-colonial governance systems that relied on hierarchical relationships for the distribution of power and resources, just like Monarchies and Feudalism in Europe did. In these societies, patronage networks were already a crucial method for maintaining social order and ensuring loyalty among elites and their followers, mirroring Europe’s journey to putative democracy.
When colonial powers arrived, they adapted and reinforced these existing structures by using local elites to administer control and distribute resources, further entrenching the patron-client model and creating a comprador class. Under colonial rule, empires used patronage to consolidate their authority by granting favours, land, and power to local rulers or influential figures who could help maintain control over the populace. These colonial governments formalized and expanded the pre-existing patronage systems, using them as a mechanism to govern vast and diverse territories with minimal direct involvement (although this wouldn’t apply comprehensively to France, whose rule was brutally direct). This method of rule set the tone for postcolonial governance, as newly independent leaders often continued the practice, recognizing its effectiveness in maintaining loyalty and controlling resources.
The continuity of patronage from pre-colonial to colonial and postcolonial times has normalized this system of distribution across many societies. Rather than being viewed solely as corruption or inefficiency, patronage is often seen as the standard way to access resources, political influence, and economic opportunities. For many it is viewed, with pleasure or contempt, as a norm. This deeply embedded practice underpins much of governance in these nations, reinforcing power imbalances and clientelist relationships while often hindering democratic processes and equitable development. The same can reasonably be said of the West (see below).
The key features of patronage and clientelism include:
Reciprocity: Both the patron and the client benefit from the relationship. The patron receives support (often political or economic), while the client gains access to resources, jobs, protection, or other rewards.
Informality: These systems often operate outside of formal channels. While rules, laws, and institutions might exist, they are circumvented by personal relationships and informal agreements.
Normality: Securing political support or economic benefits through personal relationships, rather than formal systems, is normalized, rather than being an aberration. This perpetuates inequality and weakens democratic governance, yet for many, it remains the primary way to access resources and opportunities in contexts shaped by historical injustice.
Personal Loyalty Over Institutions: Instead of a system based on the rule of law or merit, patronage and clientelism rely heavily on personal loyalty. Advancement or access to resources depends not on one's abilities but on one's relationship with a patron.
Resource Distribution: The allocation of public resources, such as government jobs or contracts, is often done to reward loyal clients or related identity groups (that’s sometimes called prebendalism, but these systems of informal redistribution are all linked) rather than being distributed based on fair competition or authentic social justice
Political Influence: In clientelist systems, political power is frequently maintained by distributing resources to key supporters in exchange for votes or other forms of allegiance.
To remind ourselves: while these features might seem inherently ‘corrupt’ or regressive, they are found in varying forms and degrees around the world, even in countries that hubristically pride themselves on democratic governance, institutional integrity and the so-called Enlightenment from which these values are descended and extracted for political currency.
PATRONAGE AND CLIENTELISM IN WESTERN COUNTRIES
In these contexts, patronage might be less visible, but it still plays a role in shaping political behavior and the allocation of resources. On the other hand, it might be more visible if our ability to see what’s happening around us were not cloaked by a combination of fear, hubris, ignorance and propaganda. Since we are repeatedly assured that democracy is ‘the best’, it would be very hard to admit it was in fact flawed like everywhere else, which would remove the right of the West to demand that ‘the rest’ change to be like them. This has been the basis of European expansion, colonialism and cosmopolitanism since the Enlightenment falsely told westerners that all valid knowledge comes from Europe. To use a line from The Abyss, ‘you have to look with better eyes than that’. This part of this blog post is designed in part to help you see, that which is left unseen by hubris and propaganda. We should do this to ensure a more balanced perspective; think of all the times you've heard countries on the global south called 'corrupt'. As George Michael once beautifully sang, 'what was over there is over here'.
In the United States, for instance, political patronage was once overtly practiced through the ‘spoils system’, where government jobs were awarded to loyal supporters of the winning party. Though reforms in the late 19th century introduced merit-based hiring systems for civil service positions, patronage still exists in various forms. Political appointments, such as ambassadorships, are often given to individuals who have supported a candidate through campaign contributions or other means of loyalty. In return, these individuals may expect favourable policies or access to government resources. Clientelism in the U.S. also takes the form of political campaign financing, where large donors may receive favourable legislation or government contracts in exchange for their financial support. This happened in 2024 with Elon Musk funding Donald Trumps re-election campaign. He has been rewarded with a post that allows him to deregulate business in the US, which is certainly to his professional advantage. Trump appointed his son-in-law's father to be Ambassador to France; Charles Kushner had previously been pardoned by Trump for what the Judge described as 'one of the most loathsome, disgusting crimes' he had ever prosecuted. While this is often legal under current laws, it reflects a system where political support and resources are exchanged, as in traditional patron-client relationships.
But most obviously, it is present in the way Donald Trump has created his 2025 Cabinet. The appointments to key public posts are all his cronies: loyalists clearly not competent for the task or competent to undo what exists. We have only to think of the appointment of the richest man in the world, Elon Musk, to a new post designed to remove the regulations that prevent the rich from getting richer at the expense of the poorer who make them rich. Or we might pause to consider the appointment of RK Kennedy, a member of deeply-entrenched family dynasty who claims to have a brain worm and does not believe in vaccines, to lead health reform in the US. It may sound like satire, but it cannot be, since satire has already been satirized. Or, to put it another way, you couldn’t make this up.
In Europe, too, patronage is normal. Political appointments in countries like France, Italy and the UK frequently reflect loyalty and personal relationships rather than qualifications. Similarly, EU funds and government contracts can be awarded based on political favouritism, especially in countries with weaker institutional checks and balances. The UK political system, while often framed as a model of democracy and transparency, is deeply rooted in historical traditions of patronage and clientelism. Patronage, a system rooted historically in Monarchy and Feudalism, continues to influence British politics. Historically, British politics was dominated by patronage, with political appointments and favours exchanged among the aristocracy and elite. Although democratic reforms, such as the Representation of the People Acts, have reduced the explicit role of patronage, its influence persists, particularly in party politics and the honours system. For instance, the awarding of life peerages and positions in the House of Lords is often seen as a reward for political loyalty or donations, rather than merit alone. ‘Cash for Honours’ scandals, like the one in 2006, highlight how political donations can result in titles or influence.
Party systems in the UK also display clientelist characteristics. Political leaders reward loyal MPs and party members with cabinet positions, committee memberships, or other prestigious roles. The concept of the ‘payroll vote’, where MPs are more likely to support the government if they hold paid positions, reflects this exchange of loyalty for material benefit. Additionally, local politics often showcases clientelism. Politicians may direct government funding or development projects to areas that strongly support them, creating a reciprocal relationship with voters. This allocation of resources is often tied to electoral success, rewarding loyal constituencies while marginalizing opposition strongholds.
And patronage and clientelism are significantly underpinned and reinforced by the persistence of the ‘old boys' network’, a prevalent system of hierarchical and social connections forged through prestigious public schools and top universities, particularly Eton College and Oxford and Cambridge. The Times reported on its power in 2022. This informal network of influence perpetuates the dominance of a narrow group of individuals, many of whom are from privileged backgrounds, in key political and governmental positions.
Political appointments, whether in parliament, the civil service, or high-profile advisory roles, are frequently made through personal connections rather than meritocratic processes, favouring those with shared educational and social backgrounds. This system consolidates power within a small elite, reinforcing patronage by ensuring that loyalty and mutual favours within this circle translate into political and economic benefits. The prevalence of this network is evident in the fact that a disproportionate number of senior politicians and civil servants are drawn from these elite institutions, perpetuating a cycle of privilege that excludes more diverse voices. This dynamic not only entrenches patronage but also embeds a clientelist system where influence and rewards are passed along well-established social lines, further marginalizing those outside these networks. The playing field, in other words, is far from level, despite the rhetoric of democracy and the rule of law implying and claiming the opposite.
It seems to be too unsavoury for us to admit to, suggesting to some that the political, economic and social system is more authentic in the global south than in western democracies. Or perhaps it serves merely to reveal the extent of meritocracy in each.
In short, it’s been with us a long time everywhere to the extent it has become normalized. Whether we choose to admit and acknowledge that is another matter, but either way, it’s been present in the global south for centuries and in the global north at least since the feudal era. And it remains in place today, everywhere, to varying degrees, whether we like to hear that or not. As Margaret Heffernan said, ‘just because you don't want to believe something, doesn't mean it isn't true’.
PATRONAGE AND CLIENTELISM IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH
Patronage and clientelism are deeply entrenched in the political and economic landscapes of the Global South, often shaping the way power and resources are distributed. To remind ourselves: patronage refers to the practice of political leaders offering material rewards, jobs, or other benefits to individuals or groups in exchange for loyalty and support. Clientelism is a related system in which these exchanges are part of an ongoing, reciprocal relationship between patrons (those in power) and clients (those who depend on them for favours).
In many countries of the Global South, where state institutions may be weaker or less accessible, patronage systems offer a more direct means for individuals to gain access to resources, employment, or government services. Political leaders often rely on these systems to maintain power, as they can mobilize support through promises of economic benefits or social protections for their client networks. In return, clients provide electoral support or political backing, ensuring the stability of the patron's power. While patronage and clientelism can stabilize regimes and create short-term economic benefits for clients, they may also hinder long-term development, entrench inequality, and weaken institutional trust, as resources are allocated based on loyalty rather than merit or need. From a different perspective, one may make the same criticisms of capitalism.
The concept of prebendalism, where public offices are treated as personal fiefdoms to be used for the benefit of the officeholder and their clients, has long been used to describe Nigerian politics. In Nigeria, elected officials often treat government positions as a means to enrich themselves and distribute resources to their supporters, ethic identity, clan and tribe. Public sector jobs, for instance, are often allocated based on loyalty rather than merit. In return, these loyalists provide electoral support, ensuring that the patron remains in power. This reproduces empire's use of government, as a means to make a narrow elite very rich.
In India, political patronage prevails in the distribution of welfare schemes. Politicians often direct government benefits toward key voter groups, securing electoral support through the promise of jobs, subsidies, or development projects. This system creates a cycle of dependency where voters align with political figures not based on ideology or policy, but because of the material benefits they expect to receive. Similarly, in Brazil, clientelism has played a significant role in local politics, where political bosses (known as ‘coronéis’) have historically controlled voting blocs by promising land, jobs, or government contracts in exchange for political support. Even as Brazil has modernized, these informal systems persist, especially at the regional and local levels.
The Global Nature of Patronage and Clientelism
The presence of patronage and clientelism in both emerging markets and advanced democracies underscores the universality of these systems. They persist not because they are inherently ‘backward’, but because they serve as a mechanism for securing power and distributing resources in environments where formal institutions may be weak, or even in systems where formal institutions are strong but the incentives for personal loyalty remain.
Even in countries with strong rule-of-law traditions, personal relationships, and informal networks of exchange can often influence political and economic outcomes.
For international businesses, understanding these systems is critical when operating in foreign markets. A company entering a new country must navigate the local political and social landscape, which may include engaging with clientelist networks to secure contracts, land, or other resources. However, international businesses must tread carefully, as engaging in patronage or clientelism can carry significant risks. In some cases, such practices may violate international anti-corruption laws, such as the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) or the UK Bribery Act. Multinational corporations (MNCs) often cross legal lines and engage in corrupt practices, including patronage and clientelism, to maximize profits, especially in markets with weak regulatory frameworks. These practices involve paying bribes, facilitating political connections, or exploiting local elites to secure contracts, favourable regulations, or monopolistic advantages. Western companies are no exception and have been implicated in such behavior. For example, Siemens was embroiled in a massive bribery scandal where it paid over $1.4 billion in bribes across multiple countries to win contracts.
Similarly, Walmart faced accusations of paying bribes in Mexico to fast-track store approvals. In many cases, companies justify these actions as necessary to operate in environments where corrupt practices are the norm, often working through intermediaries to maintain plausible deniability. These behaviors reflect a double standard: while promoting ethical business practices at home, Western MNCs frequently compromise these values abroad. Despite international anti-corruption frameworks, enforcement remains inconsistent, and many corporations continue to blend legal business with clientelist relationships to gain a competitive edge.
Last words: the global reality of patronage and clientelism
While patronage and clientelism are frequently and wrongly often solely associated with corruption or underdevelopment, they are, in reality, systems that exist in all political contexts. They provide a means of securing power and resources through personal relationships, loyalty, and informal networks. Recognizing the universality of these systems helps to demystify their role in politics and business, and it prompts us to consider the ways they shape governance around the world, from the largest democracies to the smallest local elections. In the end, patronage and clientelism are not anomalies limited to particular parts of the world; they are enduring features of human societies, manifesting in various forms depending on the context. Understanding these systems is essential to navigate the complex intersection of politics, power, and business in the shifting, globalized world.
Comments