Monday, March 21, 2016
Rentier States
In the eyes of its citizens, a rentier state is probably less legitimate since it relies on foreign income and aid. A rentier state is not able to stand alone. A rentier economy most likely hurts the problem of disconnect between the state and the citizens. Since the government has an elite who control the income, the citizens are less in their eyes. There is a hierarchy within the government creating an obvious and direct divide between the state and the citizens. Citizens are not taxed in rentier states. This, again, creates a chasm between the state, which whom pays the taxes, and the citizens, who lower their demand for political participation. With lower demand for political participation, the elite can control with the government for a longer time. According to Charles Tilly, the state is essentially a protection racket. Imagining the state as a protection item, it is inferable to me that the state has more power than the citizens do. With all of these aspects of rentier states, the relationship between the state and all of its citizens is usually a negative, unequal one. Reliance on other countries as a way of aid and revenue, makes a country less legitamate in the eyes of it's citizens.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree. Since so many rentier states or under the rule of a monarchy, it also bring up the King's Dilemma that Roger Owen writes about which argues that there is a lack of modernization and diversification of the economy. Since rentier economies are not forced to be self sustaining due to foreign cash flow, there is no incentive for economic diversification. This keeps the economy static and increases unemployment rates which further increases disconnect and dissent.
ReplyDeleteI really like your point about how there aren't taxes in rentier states, and the kind of community and sense of statehood that this fosters. Like in Beblawi's example of Kuwait, they turned into essentially a welfare state and turned to a horrible system of basically slave labor to circumvent the issue of their own citizens not wanting to work jobs such as trash collectors due to the amount of money that they were getting from the government.
ReplyDeleteI think that you are correct in that the state currently has more power than the people do. However, I feel that if the status quo were to change, then the people would have reason to make their displeasures with the government more vocal. We have seen this already in the Arab Spring. The fact that the state has more power may be making the voice of the people stronger as well. But if rentier states continue receiving large amounts of money from outside sources, then yes, the state will remain more powerful.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your point on the chasm that rentier statehood generates between state and citizen, especially regarding political participation. Since citizens are not beholden to the state in terms of taxes, there is no real call for high levels of political participation because participation is not used as a means of holding politicians accountable. In the United States, politicians run on platforms that often call for the use of taxpayer dollars, so elections and political participation is seen as a means to hold leaders accountable for the choices theyve made. In MENA, weak tax collection systems make that feat improbable. Additionally, with the state serving almost as a welfare state and an employer of last resort, basic needs are often put ahead of post materialist needs, so political participation is weakened greatly by proxy.
ReplyDelete