Patrimonialism and neopatrimonialism: comparative trajectories and readings Daniel C. Bach * Emile Durkheim Centre, Institut d’Etudes Politique, University of Bordeaux, 11 Alle ´e Ausone, 33607 Pessac, France There is a striking contrast between the dissemination of the concept of neopatrimonial rule in Africa and its more parsimonious mobilisation outside the continent. The increasing assimilation of the African neopatrimonial state to integral and predatory forms of politics has contributed to its perception as a global prototype of the ‘anti- developmental’ state. The article contrasts this trajectory with those observed in Latin America, South East Asia, Russia and Central Asia. There, patrimonialism and neopatrimonialism have been associated with a greater axiological neutrality than in Africa due, inter alia, to the preservation of an analytical dichotomy between regulated and predatory forms of neopatrimonialism. Neglected for all too long, the study of regulated forms of neopatrimonialism in Africa calls for fresh empirical and theoretical attention. Keywords: patrimonial rule; neopatrimonialism; developmental state; Africa; Latin America; Russia; Asia Introduction When Gu ¨nther Roth suggested in the late 1960s that the notion of patrimonial rule should be applied to the regimes of ‘new’ states (Roth, 1968: 194), this was already being been done in Latin America and Asia. It was another matter for Africa, where the concept of ‘charismatic authority’ had been more commonly used to describe the rise to power of nationalist leaders and parties (Apter, 1955; Ake, 1966: 6 – 13; Zolberg, 1966). Endorsing the concept of patrimoni- alism was, however, restrained by a deep ambivalence towards ways of ISSN 1466-2043 print/ISSN 1743-9094 online # 2011 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/14662043.2011.582731 http://www.informaworld.com * Email: dcpbach@gmail.com Commonwealth & Comparative Politics Vol. 49, No. 3, July 2011, 275–294