"Do you think a rentier state is more or less legitimate in the eyes of its citizens? In other words, does a rentier economy help or hurt the problem of a disconnect between state and citizens? Provide a clear rationale for your argument. "
As posed in the question, the legitimacy of rentier states, and the rentier economies that underpin them, must be considered relative to other types of states. An argument that rentier states have more legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry than democratic states, where the will of the people is directly reflected in government, seems tenuous at best. Both types of states attempt to satisfy the general populous, but through different means. Democratic states seek to satisfy citizens with popular policies and sound decision-making. While the quality of life of a state's citizens certainly impacts the legitimacy and popularity of democratic regimes, the relationship between social welfare and regime survival is far more direct in rentier states.
Still, when one considers other forms of autocratic states, such as those that derive their legitimacy strictly through heredity or the threat of military force, rentier states probably experience less of a disconnect between the state and its citizens. By transferring the wealth gained through rents--typically oil-derived in MENA--to the people, the regime essentially adopts a policy of appeasement, maintaining and improving quality of life. Should the regime fail to continue this sort of "social contract," it may face increased civil unrest and potential regime change. This means that rentier states must remain cognizant and--at least to some degree--responsive to the desires of the citizenry. Though this may not amount to democratic "legitimacy" as it is commonly understood today or in the eyes of the international community, the need to improve or maintain quality of life alleviates at least some of the disconnect between state and citizen.
Anthony - your point is well-made. The general rentier theory seems to be that the rentier state is *less* beholden to its citizens, but in fact, it ends up being just as much (or possibly even more) beholden, due to its citizens coming to expect certain benefits from the state.
ReplyDeleteAnthony, I really like the way you laid out the different types of states and their relationships/responsibilities to their populations. I would say, that in the case of rentier states, it is true that they have a sort of social contract as a way of providing for their populations. However, in the case of most MENA states, I think this social contract is unequally enforced, resulting in economic, social, and educational gaps in the state.
ReplyDelete