In most rentier states, there is a large disconnect between the citizens and those in power. Because the rent a state collects is usually used to provide privileges to the political elite in exchange for loyalty to the state, the priorities of the ruling elite are always superior to the priorities of the citizens. Furthermore, the rewards handed out by those in power are not given to citizens based on their merit or performance, but on perceived loyalty to the state and to those in power. This does not provide any incentives or rewards to citizens who work to benefit the state, so the motivation for citizens to respect and support those in power is low, if not nonexistent. By ignoring the citizens within the state, the people in power create a considerable divide between themselves and the citizens within the state.
For example, if we look at Jordan, considered a non-oil-exporting rentier state, the state has a weak tax system, and the distribution of foreign aid lies solely in the hands of the royal family, so the political elite reap most of the benefits of this aid while the citizens do not benefit at all. And even when the money does go back into helping society as a whole, the services and systems created for the citizens within the state are low quality and under-funded. So logically, this disconnect between those in power (the political elite) and the citizens would delegitimize the authority within the rentier state as seen through the eyes of its citizens, because the governments' decisions are not made with the interests of all citizens in mind, but are politically motivated and based on loyalty to the state.
You make a good point that rentier states create a larger disconnect between the state and its citizens however, it could be argued that this is not all bad. While the majority of citizens have little interest in political participation, the lack of taxation may still be favorable to many. This could cause the people of a rentier state to look positively upon their government and the people running it at the top. As we learned in our notes, much of the dissent within rentier states comes from cultural or religious issues, not typically economic ones. So although there may be a disconnect between the elites at the top and the majority of the state's citizens, this gap may not cause as much negativity as one may at first think.
ReplyDeleteI like your point about the motivation of "common" workers and how it lowers because there is no incentive. It makes me wonder if these states know about the poor work ethic their citizens have. Do they want to redistribute the wealth in order to get a better workforce?
ReplyDeleteI also wonder why the states do nothing about the divide. Do they just not care? Is the royal family the only thing in the state to matter?
I like how you say that the reward system does not foster a motivation for the people to help the state. Without the extensive amount of money from outside sources, rentier states would be in a lot of trouble.
ReplyDeleteI wonder what would happen to a rentier state is they stopped receiving their rent. Something tells me that the people would not be too inclined to help the government.
I liked your sentence about how the people in power create a large power distance in rentier states. You wrote that "by ignoring the citizens within the state, the people in power create a considerable divide between themselves and the citizens within the state". I think that this is one of, if not the most, important aspects of rentier states, and what leads to them being so shaky and potentially susceptible to protest and revolution.
ReplyDelete