VAN DEL WALLE AND LEWIS ARTICLES
New research has been conducted in order to establish internal patterns
and links in the economic and political systems in Africa. This
research has also focused on the patterns of crisis that have affected
the region during the 1980's and '90's. Two scholarly interests have
been: a necessary understanding of what is occurring in the state, the
political elite, the allies and the opposition -now considered a key
factor in the gestation of crisis; and the possibility of conducting
cross-national political studies. These studies would include, not only
African countries, but also any country that is experiencing a
democratic transition through economic adjustment plans, liberalization,
or financial crises. It is now understood that countries in East Asian,
Latin American and Africa represent different models of crisis and
crisis resolution that have been caused by globalization. The similar
circumstances affecting these and other regions allow for comparisons,
at certain levels of analysis.
The authors, Peter M. Lewis and Nicolas van de Walle, dealt with the
possibility and probability of transformation of the authoritarian
African regimes into more or less democratic systems. As in the studies
about other regions, the social and political pressures over the
allocation of national profits and resources are shaped by international
economic trends. Both articles tried to clarify the relationship between
a country's political regime, the state's performance, and the
socio-political reaction to economic adjustment. Lewis indicated that
"economic restructuring and institutional renewal entail significant
shifts in social power, which inevitably suggest some degree of
political conflict"(117) As one studies the effects of globalization,
this ever present conflict must be taken into account.
In the neo-patrimonial configuration of African elite relations, a clue
can be found to understand the cause of the permanent struggle over
state revenues, the ingovernability, and the weakness of the state
apparatus to define and carry out liberalization goals. At the same
time, this configuration also determines the limits of its own
transformation into a liberal-democracy. In Africa, the political
success of a neo-patrimonial regime is not related to its effectiveness
in terms of an increase in growth production, national wealth sharing,
trade, investment or production. Because of this, the acceptance of
economic restructuring required by international donors has, in most
cases, merely been a nominal acceptance by the governing elites rather
than truly a change in the economic or political policies. When
economic restructuring has occurred, it has often made the fiscal
situation worse because it destabilized the rent-seeking structure which
produced an immediate political shock in the net of governmental allies
and in the general population.
The African situation was different from other nations with
authoritarian governments because their inability to manage an economic
crisis did not play the same role in the political and economic
liberalization of the country. Where as in Latin America, the economic
crises led to freer competition, new political actors, and reinforced
civil organizations, in Africa this did not happen. As a consequence of
the closed, culturally rooted, and long-lasting authoritarian system,
any attempt at opposition was always silenced. The one-party system had
built a political net, characterized by vertical links, which ensured
that, even in liberalization, every turnover in state power was headed
by a member of the former administration.
The political system of a country is a strong determinant of the
economic efficiencies or inefficiencies that the country will face as
well as the manner in which they will deal with any economic crisis.
Three key questions that these articles develop are: what is the role of
politicians in transitional settings; what are the effects of
institutions on economic performance; and what are the economic linkages
and policy influences among neighboring states. The articles do not
attempt to answer these questions; they are given as a template to
assist in the study of political and economic institutions. These
questions are complements to the categories of business-state relations
given by Maxfield and Schneider, and the different types of economic
structures identified by Zysman. Economic structure, regional position,
business relations, and political structure all interplay to form a
unique national system. Such a national system is what determines how
each country will handle the pressures of a global economic environment.