Rentier states and popular legitimacy

Rentier states are likely viewed as generally illegitimate by their citizens. If one is to take an economic approach to the concept, a rentier state implies a relationship of mutual benefit - citizens are provided for financially and the government expects them not to become a source of political challenge/contestation. The provision of rents is thus a fairly transparent substitute for the democratic concept of a social contract. When evaluating whether a rentier economy helps or hurts the problem of a disconnect between states it's important to identify the perspective from which we are conducting our evaluation. From a state's perspective, the connection with its citizens is strengthened because they are receiving government benefits which will likely be unavailable without the government as the distributor. The disconnect can also be exacerbated if states provide rents in a way that sectors of the population find to be unacceptable, such as in the case of Saudi Arabia. Even with this possibility in mind, a rentier economy benefits the state by, at the very least, buying it time to develop a resonant movement frame that will help it retain power if and when the rent-derived resource is not available. From the perspective of citizens, a rentier state may be legitimate only in that they respect the state out of fear for the consequences of not doing so. The price to pay for receiving rent benefits - political silence - will likely become more difficult to pay as social media has already created spaces for dissent that rentier and non-rentier states alike view as a threat.