The origins of this paper are in a seminar on Comparative Patron-Client Relations in the Department of Sociology of The Hebrew University, given in 1974–75 by S. N. Eisenstadt and J. Azmon, in a framework of seminars on Comparative Civilizations. Two papers based on this seminar have already been published: Burkolter, V., The Patronage System, Theoretical Remarks, Basel, Social Strategies, 1976Google Scholar; and Brumer, Anita, ‘O Sistema Paternalista no Brasil,” Revista do Instituto de Filosofia e Ciencias Humanas da Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sol, IV (1976), 57–79.Google Scholar Prof. J.S. Coleman of the University of Chicago and Prof. R. Breiger of Harvard University have commented in detail on earlier drafts of this paper, and problems have been discussed by S.N. Eisenstadt with Patti Cox and Beth Hevens at Harvard. Preliminary presentations of this paper have been made by the senior author at Cambridge University and the University of Manchester. He is greatly indebted to the discussions there.

¹ Thus in anthropology they were connected with the study of such phenomena as ritual kinship or friendship, and anthropologists tended to concentrate on the institutionalized types of personal patron-client relationship, above all in tribal settings or in small rural communities. Among the best-known studies are Mintz, S.W. and Wolf, E.R., ‘An Analysis of Ritual Coparenthood (Compadrazgo),”Google ScholarSouthwestern Journal of Anthropology, 6:4 (Winter 1950). 341–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Foster, G.M., ‘Cofradia and Compadrazgo in Spain,”Google Scholaribid., 9:1 (Spring 1953), 1–28; Tegnaeus, H., Blood Brothers, New York, Philosophical Library, 1952Google Scholar; Ishino, I., ‘The Oyabun-Kobun: A Japanese Ritual Kinship Institution,” American Anthropologist, 55:1 (1953). 695–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pitt-Rivers, J., The People of the Sierra, London, Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1954Google Scholar; idem.‘Ritual and Kinship in Spain,” Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences, Series 2:20 (1958), 424–31Google Scholar; Kenny, M., A Spanish Tapestry: Town and Country in Castile, New York, Harper and Row, 1966 (1961)Google Scholar; Hutchinson, H.W., Village and Plantation Life in Northeastern Brazil, Seattle, University of Washington Press, 1957Google Scholar; Freed, S.H., ‘Fictive Kinship in a North Indian Village,” Ethnology, 2 (1963), 86–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Foster, G.M.. ‘The Dyadic Contract: A Model for the Social Structure of a Mexican Peasant Village,” American Anthropologist, 63:6 (1961), 1173–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and idem. ‘The Dyadic Contract in Tzintzuntzan II: Patron-Client Relationship,” ibid., 65:6 (1963), 1280–94. In sociology, the study of patronage was closely related to ‘primary” groups and relations in more formalized settings such as bureaucracies. See the Hawthorne Studies in the 1930s: Roethlisberger, F.J. and Dickson, W.J., Management and the Worker: An Account of a Research Program, conducted by the Western Electric Co., Hawthorne Works, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1970 (1939)Google Scholar; Warner, L.W. and Lunt, P.S., The Social Life of a Modern Community, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1941Google Scholar; Whyte, W.F., Street Corner Society: The Social Structure of an Italian Slum, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1958Google Scholar; Shils, E., ‘Primordial, Personal, Sacred and Civil Ties,”Google Scholar in idem.Center and Periphery, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1975, 111–26Google ScholarPubMed; idem. 'Primary Groups in American Army,” in ibid., 384–405; Katz, E. and Lazarfeld, P.F., Personal Influence, Glencoe, IL, The Free Press, 1955Google Scholar. In political science the study of patronage was initially concentrated on political machines and ‘bossism” in more developed societies, gradually extending to the study of corruption in developing countries. See for instance Carmen, H.J. and Luthin, R.J., Lincoln and the Patronage, New York, 1943Google Scholar; Sorauf, F.J., ‘Patronage and Party,” Midwest Journal of Political Science, 3:2 (05 1959)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wilson, J.Q., ‘The Economy of Patronage,” Journal of Political Economy, 69:4 (08. 1961), 369–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mandelbaum, S., Boss Tweed's New York, New York, Wiley and Sons, 1965Google Scholar; Banfield, E. and Wilson, J.Q., City Politics, Cambridge, Harvard University Press and M.I.T. Press, 1963Google Scholar. In the literature on those phenom- ena in developing countries at this stage see Wraith, R. and Simkins, E., Corruption in Developing Countries, London, G. Allen and Unwin, 1963Google Scholar; Smith, M.G., ‘Historical and Cultural Conditions of Political Corruption among the Hausa,” Comparative Studies in Society and History, 6:1 (01. 1964), 164–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Greenstone, J.D., ‘Corruption and Self-interest in Kampala and Nairobi,”Google Scholaribid., 8:1 (Jan. 1966), 199–210; Nash, M., ‘Party Building in Upper Burma,” Asian Survey, 3:4 (04 1963), 197–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and idem, The Golden Road to Modernity, New York, Wiley and Sons, 1965Google Scholar; Lande, C.H., Leaders, Factions and Parties: The Structure of Philippine Politics, New Haven, Yale University Press, Southeast Asian Studies, 1965.Google Scholar

² For illustrations of the conceptualization of patron-client relationships since the late sixties see for instance Wolf, E., “Kinship, Friendship, and Patron-Client Relationships in Complex Societies.” in Banton, M., ed., The Social Anthropology of Complex Societies, London, Tavistock. 1966Google Scholar, Monographs, A.S.A., 1–22Google Scholar; Weingrod, A., ‘Patrons, Patronage, and Political Parties,” Comparative Studies in Society and History, 7:4 (10. 1968), 377–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar; the issue of Sociologische Gids that deals with patron-client relations. 16:6 (11–12. 1969)Google Scholar; Lemarchand, R. and Legg, K., ‘Political Clientelism and Development: A Preliminary Analysis,” Comparative Politics, 4:2 (01. 1972), 149–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stuart, W.T., ‘The Explanation of Patron-Client Systems: Some Structural and Ecological Perspectives,” in Strickon, A. and Greenfield, S.. eds.. Structure and Process in Latin America: Patronage, Clientage and Power Systems, Albuquerque, New Mexico University Press, 1972, 19–42Google Scholar; Kaufman, R., ‘The Patron-Client Concept and Macropolitics: Prospects and Problems,” Comparative Studies in Society and History, 16:3 (07 1974), 284–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Grazziano, L., A Conceptual Framework for the Study of Clientelism, New York, Cornell University Western Societies Program Occasional Papers, 1974/1975Google Scholar: La Fontaine, J.S.. ‘Unstructured Social Relations,” The West African Journal of Sociology and Political Science, 1:1 (10. 1975), 51–81Google Scholar; Gellner, E. and Waterbury, J., eds., Patrons and Clients in Mediterranean Societies, London, Duckworth, 1977Google Scholar, esp. the following papers: Gellner, E., ‘Patrons and clients,” 1–6Google Scholar; Scott, J., ‘Patronage or exploitation?,” 21–40Google Scholar; Weingrod, A., ‘Patronage and power,” 41–52Google Scholar; and Waterbury, J., ‘An attempt to put patrons and clients in their place.” 329–42Google Scholar; Davis, J., People of the Mediterranean. An Essay in Comparative Social Anthropology, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1977, ch. 4Google Scholar; Schmidt, S.W., Guasti, L., Lande, C.H. and Scott, J.C., eds., Friends, Followers, and Factions, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1976.Google Scholar

³ The wide occurrence of patron-client relationships encompassed a great variety of links. Multipurpose, diffusely defined clusters of multiple dyadic ties were found between landholders and landless strata in search of share-cropping arrangements in the agrotowns of Italian latifundist Mezzogiorno; in Central Italy Mezzadrian signori and mezzadri paternalistic patronage; in Spain, where the link was either normatively anchored in the moral values of the pueblos and confused with friendship or was oppressive and labeled as caciquismo; in the Middle Eastern smiyya patronage with its stress on the social visibility of the patron and his power in institutional markets, as shown in Egyptian futuwwa as ibn el-balad, Lebanese muqati'ji and Iraqi al-Taba 'iyya. Patrons can use the links in many markets or center their use upon a single institutional sphere as happened with South Italian political single clientelismo of the Notables or with the Spanish caciques. For these patterns see Rossi-Doria, M., ‘The Land Tenure System and Class in Southern Italy,” American Historical Review, 64 (1958), 46–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schneider, P., ‘Honor and Conflict in a Sicilian Town,” Anthropological Quarterly, 42:3 (07 1969), 130–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, ‘Coalition Formation and Colonialism in Western Sicily,” Archives Europeennes de Sociologie, 13 (1972), 255–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tarrow, S.G., Peasant Communism in Southern Italy, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1967Google Scholar; Grazziano, L., ‘Patron-Client Relations in Southern Italy,” European Journal of Political Research, 1:1 (1973), 3–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Allum, P. A., Politics and Society in Postwar Naples, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1973Google Scholar; Silverman, S.F., ‘Patronage and Community-Nation Relationship in Central Italy,” Ethnology, 4:2 (1965), 172–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, ‘Exploitation in Rural Central Italy: Structure and Ideology in Stratification Study,” Comparative Studies in Society and History, 12:3 (07 1970), 327–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pitt-Rivers, J., The People of the SierraGoogle Scholar; Kenny, M., ‘Patterns of Patronage in Spain,” Anthropological Quarterly, 33 (01. 1960), 14–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, A Spanish Tapestry; Aya, R., The Missed Revolution. The Fate of Rural Rebels in Sicily and Southern Spain, 1840–1950, Amsterdam University, Papers on European and Mediterranean Societies, No. 3, 1975Google Scholar; Kern, R., ed., The Caciques. Oligarchical Politics and the System of Caciquismo in the Luso-Hispanic World, Albuquerque, New Mexico University Press, 1973Google Scholar; el-Messiri, S.. ‘The changing role of the futuwwa in the social structure of Cairo,” in Gellner, and Waterbury, , Patrons and Clients, 239–54Google Scholar; Khalaf, S., ‘Changing forms of political patronage in Lebanon,”Google Scholaribid. 185–206; and Rassam, A.. ‘Al-Taba'iyya: Power, patronage and marginal groups in Northern Iraq,”Google Scholaribid. 157–66. More organizationally oriented patterns are found in Southern Italy, where clientelismo and party-directed bossism were strengthened in a continuing political competition, a widening distribution of wealth and the transference of the locus of political articulation to higher levels of political contest. Such pyramidal chain-to-center structure also characterized Spanish caciquismo after the 1874 Restoration. The pattern becomes more impersonal and instrumental and less dependent on ideological prescriptions of solidarity. Unipurpose patterns are found also in Greece and in Latin America, focused either in the political sphere as in Spain or in the instrumental sphere; they are centered on the preferential access of patrons to second-order resources and are built on connections with ruling parties and State bureaucracies or on officeholding. Such links are reported as well for the Middle East (in Morocco for instance) and for Southeast Asian and black African unions and political arenas; in these cases there seem to be greater pressures for congruence between the incumbents” standing in subcollectivities and their position in institutional markets, as well as less ideological strain in the contractation and functioning of the ties. Similar patterns are found in the Japanese yuryokusha political patronage, in a sphere conceived as marginal for the societal and cosmic order and in a frame of weakened primordial territorial and kinship ties. See for instance Aya, R., The Missed RevolutionGoogle Scholar; Costa, J., ‘Ohgarquia y caciquismo como la forma actual de gobierno en Espana,”Google Scholar in idem, Oligarquia v caciquismo. Colectivismo agrario y olros escritos. Madrid. Alianza Editorial, 1967, 15–45Google Scholar; Pike, F.B., Hispanismo. 1898–1936, Notre Dame, University of Notre Dame Press. 1971Google Scholar; Romero-Maura, J.. ‘Caciquismo as a political system,” in Gellner, and Waterbury, , Patrons and Clients, 53–62Google Scholar; Kern, R., The CaciquesGoogle Scholar; Campbell, J. K.. Honour, Family and Patronage, A Study of Institutions and Moral Values in a Greek Mountain Community, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1964Google Scholar; Legg, K.R., Politics in Modern Greece, Stanford, Stanford University Press, 1969Google Scholar; and idem, ‘Political Change in Clientelistic Polity, The Failure of Democracy in Greece.” Journal of Political and Military Sociology, 1:2 (Fall 1973), 231–46Google Scholar; Waterbury, J.. The Commander of the Faithful: The Moroccan Political Elite, London, Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1970Google Scholar; Burke, E.. ‘Morocco and the Near East.” Archives Europeennes de Sociologie, 10 (1969), 70–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gellner, E., ‘The Great Patron: A Reinterpretation of Tribal Rebellions,”Google Scholaribid., 61–69; Akarly, E. and Dor, G. Ben, eds., Political Participation in Turkey, Istambul, Bogazici University Publications, 1975Google Scholar; Shor, E., ‘The Thai Bureaucracy,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 5:6 (1960), 66–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Leeds, A., ‘Brazilian Career and Social Structures: An Evolutionary Model and Case History.” American Anthropologist, 66:6 (1964), 1321–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Poitras, G.E., ‘Welfare Bureaucracy and Clientelistic Politics in Mexico,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 18:1 (03 1973). 18–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sandbrook, R., ‘Patrons, Clients, and Factions: New Dimensions of Conflict Analysis in Africa,” Canadian Journal of Political Science, 5:1 (03 1972), 104–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and idem, ‘Patrons, Clients, and Unions: The Labour Movement and Political Conflict in Kenya,” Journal of Commonwealth Political Studies, 10:1 (03 1972), 3–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ike, N., Japanese Politics. Patron-Client Democracy, New York, Knopf, 1972 (1957)Google Scholar; and Flanagan, S.C., ‘Voting Behavior in Japan: The Persistence of Traditional Patterns.” Comparative Political Studies, 1:3 (10. 1968), 391–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Zuckerman, A., Political Clienteles in Power: Party Factions and Cabinet Coalitions in Italy, Beverly Hills, Sage Publications, 1975Google Scholar. Greater coerciveness and violence is found in Sicilian mafiosi brokerage between urban absentee landlords and the Western Sicilian hinterland; mafiosi competed among themselves and vis-à-vis lower-standing sectors for greater shares of wealth, while attempting to undermine the control of landlords. A similar trend was found in Northeast Brazilian patrimonial relations between the owners of plantations and sugar-refineries and rural workers; in Egyptian futuwwa as baltagi, and in the case of Lebanese qabadat acting on behalf of zu'ama. See Blok, A., The Mafia of a Sicilian Village, 1860–1960. A Study of Violent Peasant Entrepreneurs, Oxford, B. Blackwell, 1974Google Scholar; Hess, H., Mafia and Mafiosi. The Structure of Power, Westmead Farnborough, Saxon House, 1973 (1970)Google Scholar; Gelzer, M., The Roman Nobility, Oxford, B. Blackwell, 1969, 62–111Google Scholar; Freire, G., The Masters and the Slaves: A Study in the Development of Brazilian Civilization, New York, Knopf, 1956Google Scholar; Hutchinson, B., ‘The Patron-Dependent Relationship in Brazil: A Preliminary Examination,’; Sociotogia Ruralis, 6 (1966), 3–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Johnson, M., “Political bosses and their gangs: Zu'ama and qabadayat in the Sunni Muslim quarters of Beirut,” in Gellner, and Waterbury, , Patrons and Clients, 207–24Google Scholar. Corporated patron-client relations are reported on kinship, territorial-kinship and civil-like bases. An example of the first is found in the Cyrenaican link between Saadi families and Mrabtin as-Sadgan lacking land and water rights; an example of corporated incumbency to the patron role on a civil-based criterion is reported for the Republican State's foreign clientelae to civitas liberae; on a territorial kinship-like base in Japanese dozoku. The corporate character of incumbency was linked to the semi- or quasi-legal statement of the high dissimilarity of the roles, freeing these from their propensity to instability according to changes in the market positions of the incumbents. Similar are some ritualized patterns, often described as clientelistic: the Japanese oyabun-kobun and the Christian compadrazgo. The link found among the Interlacustrine Bantu of East Africa resembles this aspect; here the ceremonial formalization makes the link no longer vulnerable to the transactional actual interests of the partners. On this range of patterns see among others Peters, E.L., ‘The Tied and the Free (Lybia),” in Peristiany, J., ed., Contributions to Mediterranean Sociology, Paris-The Hague, Mouton, 1968, 167–88Google Scholar; Badian, E., Foreign Clientelae (246–70 B.C.), Oxford, Clarendon Press. 1958Google Scholar; Beardsley, R.K. et al. , Village Japan, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 1959Google Scholar; Ishino, I., ‘The Oyabun-Kobun,” Nakane, C., Japanese Society, London, Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1970Google Scholar; Foster, G.M.. ‘Cofradia and Compadrazgo'Google Scholar; Mair, L.P., ‘Clientship in East Africa,” Cahiers d'Etudes Africaines, 2:6 (1961), 315–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Steinhart, F., ‘Vassal and Fief in three Lacustrine Kingdoms,”Google Scholaribid., 7:28 (1967), 606–23. Patron-client ties and similar relations were reported in traditional China, India, Ireland, Hungary, the East Arctic, Nepal, Malta, and the Balkans. See for instance Folsom, K.E., Friends, Guests and Colleagues: The Mu-fu System in the late Ch'ing Period, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1968Google Scholar; Breman, J., Patronage and Exploitation: Changing Agrarian Relations in South Gujarat, India, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1974Google Scholar; Bax, M., ‘Patronage Irish Style: Irish Politicians as Brokers,” Sociologische Gids, 17 (05–06 1970), 179–91Google Scholar; Fél, E. and Hofer, T., Proper Peasants: Traditional Life in a Hungarian Village, Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology, No. 46, Chicago, Aldine, 1969Google Scholar; Paine, R., ed., Patrons and Brokers in the East Arctic, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Institute of Social and Economic Research, 1971, Newfoundland Social and Economic Papers No. 2Google Scholar; Caplan, L., ‘Cash and Kind: Two media of “Bribery” in Nepal,” Man N.S., 6 (1971), 266–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Boissevain, J., Saints and Fireworks: Religion and Politics in Rural Malta, London, Athlone Press, 1965Google Scholar; and Hammel, E.A., Alternative Social Structures and Ritual Relations in the Balkans, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall, 1968. Ephemeral ties and transient patterns, as in the U.S. and the Soviet Union, are discussed below.Google Scholar

⁴ See for instance Ike, N., Japanese Politics: Patron-Client DemocracyGoogle Scholar; Galjart, B., ‘Old Patrons and New: Some Notes on the Consequences of Patronage for Local Development Projects,” Sociologia Ruralis, 1 (1967), 335–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Weingrod, A. and Morin, E., ‘Post Peasants: The Character of Contemporary Sardinian Society,” Comparative Studies in Society and History, 13:3 (07 1971), 301–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Blok, A., ‘Peasants, Patrons and Brokers in Western Sicily,’ Anthropological Quarterly, 42:3 (07 1969), 155–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Allum, P.A., Politics and Society in Postwar NaplesGoogle Scholar; Bax, M., “Patronage Irish Style’Google Scholar; Khalaf, S., ‘Changing forms of political patronage in Lebanon.”Google Scholar For a broad treatment of the adaptability of patron-client relations, see Powell, J.D., ‘Peasant Society and Clientelistic Politics,” American Political Science Review, 64:2 (06 1970), 411–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Scott, J.C., ‘Corruption, Machine Politics, and Political Change,”Google Scholaribid., 63:4 (Dec. 1969), 1142–58; Lemarchand, R. and Legg, K., ‘Political Clientelism and Development: A Preliminary Analysis,” Comparative Politics, 4:2 (01. 1972), 149–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Scott, J.C., ‘Patron-Client Politics and Political Change in Southeast Asia,” American Political Science Review, 66:1 (03 1972), 91–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Landé, C.H., ‘Networks and Groups in Southeast Asia: Some Observations on the Group Theory of Politics,”Google Scholaribid., 67:1 (March 1973), 103–27; Schneider, P., Schneider, J. and Hansen, E., ‘Modernization and Development: The Role of Regional Elites and Noncorporated Groups in the European Mediterranean,” Comparative Studies in Society and History, 14:3 (07 1972), 328–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Legg, K.R., Patrons, Clients and Politicians. New Perspectives on Political Clientelism, Beverly Hills, Institute of International Studies. Working Papers on Development, No. 3, n.d.Google Scholar

⁵ These controversies are analyzed in Eisenstadt, S.N. and Curelaru, M., The Form of Sociology, Paradigms and Crises, New York, Wiley and Sons, 1976, esp. chs. 8 and 9Google Scholar; and in idem, ‘Macrosociology. Theory, Analysis and Comparative Studies,” Current Sociology, 25:2 (1977), esp. chs. II and III.Google Scholar

⁶ For the approach of ‘classical” functionalist anthropology on this point see Radcliffe-Brown, A.R., ‘On the Concept of Function in Social Science” and ‘On Social Structure,”Google Scholar in idem, ed., Structure and Function in Primitive Society, London, Cohen and West, 1952, 178–204Google Scholar; and Gluckman, M., Custom and Conflict in Africa, Oxford, B. Blackwell, 1955Google Scholar. On the structural functional approach see for instance Parsons, T. and Shils, E., eds., Toward a General Theory of Action, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1951CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Parsons, T., The Social System, New York, The Free Press, 1964Google Scholar; and Parsons, T. and Smelser, N.J., Economy and Society, New York, The Free Press, 1965Google Scholar. For the emphasis put on interpersonal relations and exchange by scholars who dealt with patron-client relations see Wolf, E., ‘Kinship, Friendship, and Patron-Client Relationships’Google Scholar; Boissevain, J., Friends of Friends, Networks, Manipulators, and Coalitions, Oxford, B. Blackwell, 1974Google Scholar; Mayer, A. C., ‘The Significance of Ouasi-Groups in the Study of Complex Societies,” in Banton, M., ed., The Social Anth apology of Complex Societies, 1–22Google Scholar; Swartz, M.J., Local-Level Politics: Social and Cultural Perspectives, Chicago, Aldine, 1966, esp. 53–68, 199–204, 227–41, 243–69Google Scholar; Boissevain, J., ‘The Place of Non-Groups in Social Sciences,” Man, N.S., 3:4 (1968), 542–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pitt-Rivers, J., ‘The Kith and the Kin,” in Goody, J., Character of Kinship, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1973, 89–105Google Scholar; Boissevain, J. and Mitchell, J.C., eds., Network Analysis. Studies in Social Interaction, Paris-The Hague, Mouton, 1973Google Scholar; Landé, C.H., ‘Networks and Groups in Southeast Asia: Some Observations on the Group Theory of Polities’Google Scholar; idem, ‘Group Politics and Dyadic Politics: Notes for a Theory,” in Schmidt, et al. Friends, Followers, and Factions, 506–10Google Scholar; Weingrod, A.. ‘Patronage and power,” in Gellner, and Waterbury, , Patrons and Clients, 41–52Google Scholar; and Scott, J.C., ‘Political Clientelism: A Bibliographical Essay,” in Schmidt, et al. , Friends, Followers and Factions, 488–89.Google Scholar

⁷ On the concept of honor in societies in which patron-client relations can also be found, see Peristiany, J.G., ed., Honour and Shame: The Values of Mediterranean Society, London, Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1965Google Scholar; Schneider, P., ‘Honour and Conflict in a Sicilian Town’Google Scholar; Campbell, J.K., Honour, Family, and PatronageGoogle Scholar: Pitt-Rivers, J., ‘Honour and Social Status,”Google Scholar in Peristiany, J.G., ed., Honour and Shame, 19–78Google Scholar; idem. ‘Honor,” in Shills, D.L., ed., International Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, New York; Macmillan and Free Press, 1968, Vol. 6, 503–10Google Scholar; Davis, J., ‘Honour and Politics in Picticci,” Proceedings of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 1969, 64–81Google Scholar; Schneider, J., ‘Of Vigilance and Virgins. Honour, Shame and the Access to Resources in Mediterranean Societies,” Ethnology, 10:1 (01. 1971), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar On the Image of Limited Good see Foster, G., ‘Peasant Society and the Image of Limited Good.” American Anthropologist, 67:2 (04 1965), 293–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For controversies about the concept see for instance: Kaplan, D. and Saler, B., ‘Foster's Image of the Limited Good: An Example of Anthropological Explanation,” American Anthropologist, 68:1 (01. 1966), 202–05CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bennett, J.W., ‘Further Remarks on Foster's Image of Limited Good,”Google Scholaribid., 206–09; and Foster's reply, ibid., 210–14. See also Piker, S., ‘The Image of Limited Good: Comments on an Exercise in Description and Interpretation,” American Anthropologist, 68:5 (10. 1966), 1202–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Foster, G.M., ‘A Second Look at Limited Good,” Anthropological Quarterly, 45:2 (04 1972), 57–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Gregory, J.R., ‘Image of Limited Good or Expectation of Reciprocity?,” Current Anthropology, 16:1 (03 1975), 73–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On ‘amoral familism” see Banfield, E., The Moral Basis of a Backward Society, Glencoe, IL, The Free Press, 1958Google Scholar: Wichers, A.J., ‘Amoral Familism Reconsidered,” Sociologia Ruralis, 4:2 (1964), 167–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Pizzorno, A., ‘Amoral Familism and Historical Marginality,” International Review of Community Development, 15:16 (1966), 55–66.Google Scholar

⁸ Landé, C.H., ‘Introduction. The Dyadic Basis of Clientelism,” in Schmidt, et al. , Friends, Followers, and Factions, XIII–XXXVII.Google Scholar

⁹ See for instance Zuckerman, A., Political ClientelesGoogle Scholar, Tarrow, S., From Center to Periphery. Alternative Models of National-Local Policy Impact and an Application to France and Italy, Ithaca, Cornell University Western Societies Program Occasional Papers, No. 4 (1976)Google Scholar; Legg, K.R., Patrons, Clients and Politicians, New Perspectives on Political ClientelismGoogle Scholar; Waterbury, J., The Commander of the Faithful. The Moroccan Political Elite. A Study in Segmented Politics, London, Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1970Google Scholar; Grazziano, L., A Conceptual Framework for the Study of ClientelismGoogle Scholar; and the contributions to the Conference on Patronage held Nov. 1974 in Rome by the Center for Mediterranean Studies of the American Universities Field Staff and included in Gellner, E. and Waterbury, J., Patrons and Clients, esp.Google ScholarGellner, E., ‘Patrons and Clients,” 1–6.Google Scholar

¹⁰ See for instance the bibliographical essay of Scott, J.C., in Schmidt, et al. , Friends, Followers, and Factions, 483–505, and the literature quoted in preceding notes.Google Scholar

¹¹ Homans, G.C., Social Behaviour. Its Elementary Forms, New York, Harcourt Brace and World, 1961Google Scholar; Blau, P., ‘Justice in Social Exchange,” Sociological Inquiry, 34:1–2 (Spring 1964), 193–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, Exchange and Power in Social Life, New York, Wiley and Sons, 1964Google Scholar. A treatment of these different orientations in social exchange theory can be found in Ekeh, P., Social Exchange Theory, The Two Traditions, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1964Google Scholar. See also Turner, J.H., The Structure of Sociological Theory, Homewood, IL, The Dorsey Press, 1974, 211–320.Google Scholar

¹² Mauss, M., The Gift, Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies, London, Cohen and West, 1954Google Scholar [‘Essai sur le don,” Année sociologique, n.s., 1 (1925), 30–126Google Scholar]; Levi-Strauss, C., The Elementary Structures of Kinship, Boston, Beacon Press, 1969 (1949)Google Scholar; Parsons, T., ‘On the Concept of Influence,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 27 (Spring 1963), 37–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, ‘Rejoinder to Bauer and Coleman,” ibid., 83–92; idem, ‘On the Concept of Political Power,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 103:3 (1963), 232–62Google Scholar; Coleman, J.S., ‘Political Money,” The American Political Science Review, 64:4 (12. 1970), 1074–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹³ The difference between specific and generalized exchange as presented here is not identical to the difference between restricted and generalized exchange as presented above all by C. Levi-Strauss. The latter distinction refers mostly to the scope and ‘directedness” of the exchange of the restricted one as against the indirection of the latter. Specific exchange can be both direct (barter) and indirect, and the more indirect it is the more dependent it is on generalized media of exchange: money, political loyalties or influence. The proper functioning of such media does in a way exacerbate the problem of trust and the importance of appropriate mechanisms of generalized exchange. Generalized exchange is almost always less direct, but the scope of the persons or spheres it involves may vary greatly.

¹⁴ Durkheim, E., On the Division of Labor in Society, New York, Macmillan. 1933Google Scholar. For further treatment of the precontractual elements of social life see for instance Parsons, T., The Structure of Social Action, esp. 301–38, 460–70 and 708–14Google Scholar: Davis, J.A.. ‘Structural Balance, Mechanical Solidarity, and Interpersonal Relations,” American Journal of Sociology, 68:4 (01. 1963), 444–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Befu, H., ‘Gift-Giving and Social Reciprocity in Japan,” France-Asie/Asia, 188 (Hiver 1966/1967), 161–77Google Scholar. See also Parsons, T., ‘Durkheim on Religion Revisited: Another Look at the Elementary Forms of Religious Life,” in Glock, C. Y. and Hammond, P. E., eds., Beyond the Classics: Essays in the Scientific Study of Religion, New York, Harper and Row, 1973, 156–81.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Fortes, M., Kinship and the Social Order, Chicago, Aldine, 1965Google Scholar. On the societal significance of this aspect of reliability as connected to the ‘moral” realm of kinship see Bloch, M., ‘The Long Term and the Short Term: The Economic and Political Significance of Kinship,” in Goody, J., The Character of Kinship, 75–89.Google Scholar

¹⁶ On unconditionalities and titles see Eisenstadt, S.N., Social Differentiation and Stratification, Glenview, IL, Scott Foresman and Co., 1971Google Scholar, and idem, ‘Prestige, Participation and Strata Formation,” in Jackson, J.A., ed., Social Stratification, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1968, 62–103.Google ScholarPubMed

¹⁷ On public goods see Kuhn, A., The Study of Society. A Unified Approach, Homewood, IL, The Dorsey Press, 1963Google Scholar; Olson, M., The Logic of Collective Action, New York, Schocken, 1968Google Scholar; Williamson, O.E., ‘Market and Hierarchies: Some Elementary Considerations,” American Economic Review, 63:2 (05 1973), 316–25Google Scholar; and idem, Some Notes on the Economics of Atmosphere, Fels Discussion Papers No. 29, University of Pennsylvania, The Fels Center of Government, 1973Google Scholar. See also Eisenstadt, S.N. and Curelaru, M., The Form of Sociology. Paradigms and Crises, New York, Wiley and Sons, 1976, 364 ff.Google Scholar

¹⁸ On hospitality see Pitt-Rivers, J., The Stranger, the Guest and the Hostile Host: Introduction to the Study of the Laws of Hospitality,” in Peristiany, J.G., ed., Contributions, 13–30Google Scholar; and the issue of Anthropological Quarterly dealing with ‘Visiting Patterns and Social Dynamics in Eastern Mediterranean Communities.” 47:1 (01. 1974)Google Scholar. On ritual kinship and friendship see Eisenstadt, S.N., ‘Ritualized Personal Relations.” Man, N.S., 96 (1956), 1–6Google Scholar: Gudeman, S., ‘The Compadrazgo as a Reflection of the Natural and Spiritual Person,” The Curl Prize Essay 1971, Proceedings of the Royal Anthropological Institute, (1971), 45–71Google Scholar; Goody, E.N., ‘Forms of Pro-Parenthood,” in Goody, J., ed. Kinship. Harmondsworth, Penguin Modern Sociology Series, 1971, 331–45Google Scholar; Pitt-Rivers, J.. ‘Kinship: III-Pseudo-Kinship,” in International Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, vol. 8, 406–13Google Scholar; and the contributions by Wolf, Foster, Ishino, Wolf and Mintz quoted in note 1. For the structuring of societal trust as related to friendship and kinship see Eisenstadt, S.N., ‘Friendship and the Structure of Trust and Solidarity in Society,” in Leyton, E., ed., The Compact. Selected Dimensions of Friendship, Newfoundland Social & Economic Papers No. 3, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 1974, 138–45Google Scholar. The fluidity of these mechanisms in respect to their ideological conceptualization and application in social relations is analyzed in African context by La Fontaine, J.S., ‘The Mother's Brother as Patron,” Archives Europeennes de Sociologie, 16 (1975), 76–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and idem, ‘Unstructured Social Relations,” The West African Journal of Sociology and Political Science, 1:1 (10. 1975), 51–81.Google Scholar

¹⁹ On reciprocity and exchange in primitive societies see Sahlins, M., ‘On the Sociology of Primitive Exchange,” in Banton, M., ed., The Relevance of Models for Social Anthropology, New York, Praeger, 1965, 139–236Google Scholar; and idem.Tribesmen, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 1968. chs. 4 and 5.Google ScholarPubMed

²⁰ Parsons, T. et al. , eds., Theories of Society, Glencoe, IL, The Free Press, 1961Google Scholar; idem, ‘On the Concept of Value Commitment,” Sociological Inquiry, 38:2 (Spring 1968), 135–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mayhew, L., ‘Ascription in Modern Societies,”Google Scholaribid., 105–20; Turner, T.S., ‘Parson's Concept of “Generalized Media of Social Interaction” and its Relevance for Social Anthropology,”Google Scholaribid., 121–34.

²¹ On the pluralistic model and open market bureaucratic societies see Eisenstadt, S.N., ed., Political Sociology, 488–521Google Scholar; and idem, ‘Bureaucracy, Bureaucratization, Markets and Power Structure,” in idem, Essays on Comparative Institutions, New York, Wiley and Sons, 1965, 177–215Google Scholar. On the totalitarian model see Brzezinski, Z., ‘The Nature of the Soviet System,” Slavic Review, 20:3 (10. 1961), 354–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lowenthal, R., ‘The Logic of One-Party Rule,” in Brumberg, A., ed., Russia under Krushchev; An Anthology from Problems of Communism, New York, Praeger, 1962Google Scholar; Rigby, T.H., ‘Traditional, Market, and Organizational Societies and the USSR,” World Politics, 16:4 (07 1964), 539–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Linz, J.J., ‘Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes,” in Greenstein, F.I. and Polsby, N.W., eds., Handbook of Political Science, Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley, 1975, 175–411Google Scholar. On caste systems see Dumont, L., Homo hierarchicus: Essai sur le systeme des castes, Gallimard, 1966Google Scholar; idem, ed., Contributions to Indian Sociology, Paris-The Hague, Mouton, 1966Google Scholar; Singer, M., ‘The Social Organization of Indian Civilization,” Diogenes, 45 (Winter 1964), 84–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, ed.. Traditional India: Struclure and Change, Austin, American Folklore Society, University of Texas Press, 1959Google Scholar; Srinivas, M.N., Caste in Modern India, New York, Asia Publishing House, 1962Google Scholar; and David, K., ‘Hierarchy and Equivalence in Jaffna, North Sri Lanka: Normative Codes as Mediator,”Google Scholar in idem, ed., The New Wind. Changing Identities in South Asia, Paris-The Hague, Mouton, 1976, 179–226Google Scholar. On feudal models see Eisenstadt, S.N., Political Sociology, ch. 7Google Scholar. On consociational models see Daalder, H., ‘The Consociational Democracy Theme,” World Politics, 26;4 (07 1974), 604–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Liphart, A., ‘Consociational Democracy,”Google Scholaridem, 21 (1969); idem, The Politics of Accommodation: Pluralism and Democracy in the Netherlands, Beverly Hills, California; University Press, 1968Google Scholar. See also Lembruch, G., Proporzdemokratie: Politische System und Politische Kultur in der Schweiz und Oesterreich, Tubingen, Mohr, 1968Google Scholar; idem, ‘Konkordanzdemokratie im Politische System der Schweiz,” Vierteljahresschrift, 9:3 (1968)Google Scholar; and idem.‘Konkordanzdemokratie im Internationalen System,” Politische Vierteljahresschrift, Vol. 10, SonderheftGoogle Scholar; and Eisenstadt, S.N., ‘Bureaucracy, Bureaucratization, Markets and Power Structure.’Google Scholar

²² See for example Weingrod, A., ‘Patrons, Patronage and Political Parties’Google Scholar; Hall, A., ‘Concepts and Terms. Patron-Client Relationship,” Journal of Peasant Studies, 1 (1974), 506–09CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Grazziano, L., A Conceptual Framework for the Study of ClientelismGoogle Scholar; Boissevain, J., ‘Patrons and Brokers’Google Scholar; Blok, A., ‘Variations in Patronage,” Sociologische Gids, 16:6 (11–12. 1969), 365–78Google Scholar. For notable applications of such an approach to case studies see Allum, P.A., Politics and Society in Postwar NaplesGoogle Scholar; Silverman, S.F., ‘Patronage and Community-Nation Relationships in Central Italy,” Ethnology, 4:2 (1965), 172–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Boissevain, J., ‘When the saints go marching out. Reflections on the decline of patronage in Malta,” in Gellner, E. and Waterbury, J., Patrons and Clients, 81–96Google Scholar. Compare these definitions with Gellner, E., ‘Patrons and Clients’Google Scholar; Waterbury, J., ‘An attempt to put patrons and clients in their place’Google Scholar; and Wolf, E., ‘Kinship, Friendship and Patron-Client Relationships.’Google Scholar

²³ On corporatism in Latin America see Malloy, J., “Authoritarianism and Corporatism in Latin America: The Modal Pattern,”Google Scholar in idem, ed., Authoritarianism and Corporatism in Latin America, Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburgh Press, 1977, 3–19Google Scholar; Chalmers, D.A., ‘The Politi- cized State in Latin America,”Google Scholar in ibid., 23–46; O'Donnell, G.A., ‘Corporatism and the Question of the State,”Google Scholar in ibid., 47–87; Schwartzman, S., ‘Back to Weber: Corporatism and Patrimonialism in the Seventies,”Google Scholar in ibid., 89–106; and Kaufman, R.R., ‘Corporatism, Clientelism, and Partisan Conflict: A Study of Seven Latin American Countries,”Google Scholar in ibid., 109–48; Stephen, X., ed., Authoritarian Brazil. New Haven, Yale University Press, 1973.Google Scholar

²⁴ For examples of the limitation in scope and convertibility of the free flow of resources in these societies see Aya, R., The Missed Revolution. The Fate of Rural Rebels in Sicily and Southern Spain 1840–1950Google Scholar; Campbell, J.K., ‘Two Case-Studies of Marketing and Patronage in Greece,” in Peristiany, J.G., ed., Contributions to Mediterranean Sociology, Paris-The Hague, Mouton, 1968, 143–54Google Scholar; Sayari, S., ‘Political Patronage in Turkey,” in Gellner, and Waterbury, , Patrons and Clients, 103–13Google Scholar. For the pressures on patronalistic arrangements in these societies see Boissevain, J., ‘Poverty and Politics in a Sicilian Agrotown,” International Archives of Ethnography, 50 (1966), 198–236Google Scholar; Tarrow, S., ‘Economic Development and the Transformation of the Italian Party System,” Comparative Politics, 1:2 (01, 1969), 161–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and idem, ‘Local Constraints on Regional Reform. A Comparison of Italy and France,” Comparative Politics, 7:1 (10. 1974), 1–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a general treatment of this subject see Eisenstadt, S.N., ‘Beyond Classical Revolution—Processes of Change and Revolution in Neo-patrimonial Societies,”Google Scholar in idem. Revolution and the Transformation of Societies. A Comparative Study of Civilizations, New York: The Free Press, 1978, 273–310; see also below.Google Scholar

²⁵ On these aspects of patron-client relations and especially on their fragility, see among others Blok, A., The Mafia of a Sicilian VillageGoogle Scholar; Wolf, E., ‘On Peasant Rebellions,” International Social Science Journal, 21:2 (1969), 286–93Google Scholar; Gellner, E., ‘How to live in anarchy,” The Listener, 3:4 (1958), 579–83Google Scholar; idem, ‘Patrons and Clients,” Cardoso, F.H., ‘Tensoes sociais no campo e reforma agraria,” Revista brasileira de estudos poiiticos, 12 (10. 1961), 7–26Google Scholar; Friedrich, P., Agrarian Revolt in a Mexican Village, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, 1970Google Scholar; Hottinger, A., ‘Zuama in Historical Perspective,” in Binder, L., ed., Politics in Lebanon, New York, Wiley and Sons, 1966, 85–105Google Scholar; Pool, D.The Politics of Patronage: Elites and Social Structure in IraqGoogle Scholar; and el-Messiri, S., ‘The changing role of the futuwwa.’Google Scholar

²⁶ On possibilities of severing the relationship, see for instance Blok, A., ‘Mafia and Peasant Rebellion as Contrasting Factors in Sicilian Latifundism,” Archives Europeennes de Sociologie, 10 (1969), 95–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Singelmann, P., ‘The Closing Triangle: Critical Notes on a Model for Peasant Mobilization in Latin America.” Comparative Studies in Society and History, 17:4 (10. 1975), 389–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The quasi-legal or quasi-ritual fixation of incumbency to roles may provide a way of avoiding the above possibility. See Peters, E.L., ‘The Tied and the Free (Lybia),” in Peristiany, J.G., ed., Contributions to Mediterranean Sociology, 167–88Google Scholar; and Ishino, I., ‘The Oyabun-Kobun.’Google Scholar

²⁷ For these concepts see Polanyi, K.E. et al. , eds., Trade and Market in Early Empires, New York, The Free Press, 1957Google Scholar; Dalton, G., Primitive, Archaic and Modern Economies: Essays of Karl Polanyi, New York, Anchor Books, 1968Google Scholar. On the economic structure and process in these societies see Eisenstadt, S.N., Traditional Patrimonialism and Modern Neopatrimonialism, Beverly Hills, Sage Research Papers in the Social Sciences, 1973Google Scholar; for illustrative materials see Rivlin, B. and Szyliowicz, J.S., eds., The Contemporary Middle East: Traditions and Innovations, New York, Random House, 1965, esp. 297–324, 368–74Google Scholar; Golay, F.H. et al. , eds., Underdevelopment and Economic Nationalism in Southeast Asia, Ithaca, Cornell University, Department of Asian Studies, 1967Google Scholar; Soedjatmoko, , Economic Development as a Cultural Problem, Ithaca, Cornell University, Department of Asian Studies, 1968Google Scholar; Silcock, T.H., ed., Readings in Malayan Economics, Singapore, Eastern Universities Press, 1961Google Scholar; Jaguaribe, H., Desenvolvimento economico e desenvolvimento politico, Rio de Janeiro, Fundo de Cultura, 1962Google Scholar; and Schneider, J. and Schneider, P., Culture and Political Economy in Western Sicily.Google Scholar

²⁸ Hoselitz, B.F., Sociological Aspects of Economic Growth, New York, The Free Press, 1960, 85–114.Google Scholar

²⁹ On these polities see Eisenstadt, S.N., The Political System of Empires, New York, The Free Press, 1963, esp. ch. 7Google Scholar, and idem, Political Sociology.

³⁰ See Wallerstein, I.M., ed., Social Change. The Colonial Structure, New York, Wiley and Sons, 1969Google Scholar. Eisenstadt, S.N., Traditional Patrimonialism and Modern NeopatrimonialismGoogle Scholar contains detailed bibliographical notes on these topics. On illustrations specifically from the literature on patron-client relations, see for instance Schneider, J. and Schneider, P., Culture and Political Economy in Western SicilyGoogle Scholar: Snowden, F., ‘On the Social Origins of Agrarian Fascism in Italy,” Archives Europeennes de Sociologie, 13:2 (1972), 268–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schneider, J., ‘Family Patrimonies and Economic Behaviour in Western Sicily,” Anthropological Quarterly, 42:3 (09. 1969), 109–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hess, H., Mafia and MafiosiGoogle Scholar; Feder, E., Violencia y despojo del campesino: ellatifundismo en America Latina, Mexico, Siglo xxi, 1975 (1971)Google Scholar; Stavenhagen, R., ‘Social Aspects of Agrarian Structure in Mexico,” Social Research, 33:3 (1966), 463–85Google Scholar; Rossi-Doria, M., ‘The Land Tenure System and Class in Southern Italy.’Google Scholar

³¹ Bauer, P.T. and Yamey, B.S., The Economics of Underdeveloped Countries, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1957Google Scholar; Belshaw, C.S., ‘Approaches to Articulation in the Economy,”Google Scholar in idem, Traditional Exchange and Modern Markets, Cliffs, Englewood, Hall, Prentice, 1965, 84–107.Google Scholar See also Eisenstadt, S.N., Traditional Patrimonialism and Modern Neopatrimonialism.Google Scholar

³² The concept of the dual character of these economies in colonial settings was formulated originally by Boeke, J.H., Tropisch-Koloniale Staathuishoudkunde, 1910.Google Scholar For its treatment see Furnivall, J.S., Netherlands India. A Study of Plural Economy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1939Google Scholar; Boeke, J.H., The Structure of the Netherlands Indian Economy, New York, Institute of Pacific Relations, 1942Google Scholar; and idem, Economics and Economic Policy of Dual Societies. New York, Institute of Pacific Relations, 1953.Google Scholar On patterns of dependency in some of these societies see Furtado, C., Obstacles to the Development of Latin America, New York, Anchor Books, 1970Google Scholar; Furnivall, J.S., Colonial Policy and Practice: A Comparative Study of Burma and Netherlands India, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1948Google Scholar; Turner, V., ed., Colonization in Africa 1870–1960, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1971Google Scholar; Eisen-stadt, S.N., Essays on Social and Political Aspects of Economic Development, Paris-The Hague, Mouton, 1958Google Scholar; Schwartzman, S., São Paulo e o Estado Nacional, São Paulo, DIFEL, 1975Google Scholar; Schneider, P., ‘Coalition Formation and Colonialism in Western Sicily’Google Scholar; Guasti, L., ‘Peru: Clientelism and Internal Control,” in Schmidt et al., Friends, Followers and Factions, 422–38Google Scholar; Stallings, B., Economic Dependency in Africa and Latin AmericaGoogle Scholar, Hills, Beverly, Sage Professional Papers in Comparative Politics, 1972.Google Scholar

³³ This point can be found in Banfield, E., The Moral Basis of a Backward SocietyGoogle Scholar; Wolf, E., PeasantsGoogle Scholar, Cliffs, Englewood, Prentice-Hall, , 1966Google Scholar; Schneider, J., ‘Of Vigilance and Virgins’Google Scholar; Alavi, H., ‘Peasant Classes and Primordial Loyalties,” Journal of Peasant Studies, 1:1 (Oct. 1973), 23–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Powell, J.D., ‘Peasant Society and Clientelism’Google Scholar; Blok, A., ‘Coalitions in Sicilian Peasant Society,” in Boissevain, J. and Mitchell, C., eds., Network Analysis Studies in Human Interaction, Paris-The Hague, Mouton, 1973, 151–66Google Scholar; Johnson, M., ‘Political bosses and their gangs’Google Scholar; and Lynch, F., Four Readings in Philippine Values, Quezon City, Institute of Philippine Culture Papers No. 2, Ateneo de Manila Press, 1964.Google Scholar

³⁴ On the distinction between strong and weak centers see Eisenstadt, S.N., Political SociologyGoogle Scholar; idem, Social Differentiation and Stratification, esp. ch. 8; and idem, Traditional Patrimonialism and Modern Neopatrimonialism. Further elaboration can be found in idem, Revolution and the Transformation of Societies, esp. chs. IV, V. The structurally weak character of those centers was a recurrent theme in the literature. See for instance Tarrow, S., From Center to PeripheryGoogle Scholar, idem, ‘Local Constraints'; Silverman, , ‘Patronage and Community-Nation Relationships’Google Scholar; Landé, C.H., ‘Networks and Groups in Southeast Asia’Google Scholar; and Scott, J.G., ‘Patron-Client Politics and Political Change.” On the symbolic institutional characteristics of center and peripheryGoogle Scholar see Roth, G., ‘Personal Rulership, Patrimonialism and Empire Building in the New States,” World Politics, 20:2 (Jan. 1968), 194–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Zolberg, A.R., Creating Political Order: The Party States of West Africa 1870–1960, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1971Google Scholar; Riggs, F.W., Thailand: The Modernization of a Bureaucratic Polity, Honolulu, East West Center Press, 1966Google Scholar; Thaung, , ‘Burmese Kinship in Theory and Practice under the Reign of King Mindon,” Journal of the Burma Research Society, 42:2 (1959), 171–85Google Scholar; Schrieke, B., Indonesian Sociological Studies, The Hague-BandungGoogle Scholar, Hoeve, W. Van, 1957Google Scholar; Lear, J.C. Van, Indonesian Trade and Society, The Hague-BandungGoogle Scholar, Hoeve, W. Van, 1955, 1–221Google Scholar; Whitmore, J.K., Vietnamese Adaptations of Chinese Government Structure in the Fifteenth Century, New Haven, Yale University Southeast Asian Studies, 1970Google Scholar; Heine-Geldern, R., ‘Conception of State and Kinship in Southeast Asia.” Southeast Asian Program Data paper No 18, Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 1956, 1–13Google Scholar; Hanke, L., ed., History of Latin American Civilization, 2 vols., Boston, Little Brown, 1967Google Scholar; Sarfatti, M., Spanish Bureaucratic Patrimonialism in America, Berkeley, University of California PressGoogle Scholar, Institute of International Studies, Politics of Modernization Series No. 1, 1966; Haring, C.H., The Spanish Empire in America, New York, Oxford University Press, 1947.Google Scholar

³⁵ See for instance Landé, C.H., ‘Networks and Groups'Google Scholar; Boissevain, J., ‘Poverty and Polities’Google Scholar; Gilmore, D., ‘Class, Culture and Community Size in Spain’Google Scholar; Meertens, D., ‘South from Madrid: Regional Elites and Resistance,” in Boissevain, J. and Friedl, J., eds., Beyond the Community: Social Process in Europe, European-Mediterranean Study Group of the University of Amsterdam, 1975, 65–74.Google Scholar

³⁶ See for example Powell, J.D.. ‘Peasant Society and Clientelistic Politics,” 411–25Google Scholar; Aya, R., The Missed Revolution, 22–23Google Scholar; Waterbury, J., The Commander of the FaithfulGoogle Scholar; Tarrow, S., Peasant Communism in Southern Italy.Google Scholar In Sicily and other regions the overlapping and intermingling of occupational roles and identities can hamper the formation of broad categorical commitments. For Sicily see Schneider, J., ‘Family Patrimonies and Economic Behaviour in Western Sicily,” and Blok, A., The Mafia of a Sicilian Village 1860–1960, Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 1974. See also Note 33.Google Scholar

³⁷ On bilateral kinship and its societal implications see Pehrson, R.H., ‘Bilateral Kin Groupings as a Structural Type,” Journal of East Asiatic Studies, 3 (1954), 199–202Google Scholar; Davenport, W., ‘Nonunilineal Descent and Descent Groups,” American Anthropologist, 61 (1959), 557–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Blehr, O., ‘Action Groups in a Society with Bilateral Kinship. A Case Study of the Faroe Islands,” Ethnology, 3:3 (07 1963), 269–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pitt-Rivers, J., ‘The Kith and the Kin;’Google ScholarLandé, C.H., “Kinship and Politics in Pre-Modern and Nonwestern Societies,” in McAlister, J. T. Jr, ed., Southeast Asia: The Politics of National Integration, New York, Random House, 1973, 219–33Google Scholar; and idem, ‘Networks and Groups in Southeast Asia.” On the structure of kinship in the clientelistic societies see Swanson, E., Rules of Descent. Studies in the Sociology of ParentageGoogle Scholar, Arbor, Ann, University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology, Anthropological Papers, 1969Google Scholar; Murdock, G.P., ‘Cognatic Forms of Social Organizations,”Google Scholar in idem, ed., Social Structure in Southeast Asia, Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology, No. 29 (1960), 1–14; Khaing, M.M., Burmese FamilyGoogle Scholar, Bombay, , Longmans Green, 1947Google Scholar; Wolf, E., ‘Society and Symbols in Latin Europe and the Islamic Near East,” Anthropological Quarterly, 42:3 (07 1969), 287–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Moss, L.W. and Thompson, W.H., ‘The South Italian Family: Literature and Observations,” Human Organization, 18: 1 (1959), 35–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lewis, O., The Children of Sanchez: An Autobiography of a Mexican Family, New York, Random House, 1961.Google Scholar

³⁸ On the structuring of social hierarchies in some societies see Sarfatti, M. and Bergman, A.E., Social Stratification in Peru, Berkeley, University of California Institute of International Studies, Politics of Modernization Series No. 5, 1969, 43, 52–54Google Scholar; Burnett, B.G. and Johnson, R.F., eds., Political Forces in Latin America, Belmont, Wadsworth, 1968Google Scholar; Graciarena, J., Poder y closes sociales en el desarollo de América Latina, Buenos Aires, Paidos, 1968Google Scholar; Heath, D.B. and Adams, R., eds., Contemporary Cultures and Societies in Latin America, New York, Random House, 1965, esp. part 3Google Scholar; Bourricaud, F., ‘Structure and Function of the Peruvian Oligarchy,” Studies in Comparative International Development, 2:2 (1966), 17–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Touraine, A., ‘Social Mobility, Class Relations, and Nationalism in Latin America,”Google Scholaribid., 1:3 (1965), 19–25; Fernandez, J.A., The Political Elite in Argentina, New York, New York University Press, 1970Google Scholar; Touraine, A. and Pecaut, D., ‘Working Class Consciousness and Economic Development,” Studies in Comparative International Development, 3:4 (1967–1968), 71–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Benda, H.J., ‘Political Elites in Colonial Southeast Asia: An Historical Analysis,” Comparative Studies in Society and History, 7:2 (04 1965), 233–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and idem, ‘Non Western Intelligentsia as Political Elites,” in Eisenstadt, S.N., Political Sociology, 437–45Google Scholar; Singer, M.R., The Emerging Elite: A Study of Political Leadership in Ceylon, Cambridge, MIT Press, 1964Google Scholar; and Lissak, M., A Socio-Political Hierarchy in a Loose Social Structure. The Structure of Stratification in Thailand, Jerusalem, Academic Press, 1973.Google Scholar

³⁹ To be found for instance in Argentina. See Strickon, A., ‘Class and Kinship in Argentina,’ Ethnology, 1:4 (1962), 500–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁰ Good examples of this pattern of segregation can be found in Friedl, E., Vassilika, A Village in Modern Greece, New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1962Google Scholar; Pitt-Rivers, J., The People of the SierraGoogle Scholar, and Campbell, J.K., Honour, Family and PatronageGoogle Scholar. See also Baroja, J. Caro, ‘El sociocentrismo de los pueblos españoles,’ Separata del homenaje a F. Krueger, Madrid-Mendoza, U.N.C., Tomo 2, 1954. For a criticismGoogle Scholar see Gilmore, D., ‘Class, Culture and Community Size in Spain.’Google Scholar On the weakness of categorial organization see among many others Landé, C.H., ‘Group Politics and Dyadic Politics: Notes for a Theory.’Google Scholar For the presence of shifting allegiances in the political sphere see for instance Zuckerman, A., Political Clienteles in Power.Google Scholar

⁴¹ See on this Lemieux, V., Le Patronage politique. Une étude comparativeGoogle Scholar, Québec, , Les Presses de L'Université Laval, 1977;Google ScholarWolf, E., Peasants, 81–95;Google ScholarBoissevain, J., ‘Patrons as Brokers,” Sociologische Gids, 16:6 (1969), 379–86;Google ScholarDavis, J., People of the Mediterranean, ch. 4;Google ScholarLegg, K.R., Patrons, Clients and Politicians;Google Scholar A. Rassman, ‘Al-Taba'yya: Power, Patronage and Marginal Groups in Northern Iraq,” in Gellner, E. and Waterbury, J., Patrons and Clients, 157–66;Google ScholarSandbrook, R., ‘Patrons, Clients, and Factions';Google ScholarLemarchand, R., ‘Political Exchange, Clientelism and Development in Tropical Africa,” Culture et Developpemenl, 4:3 (1972)Google Scholar, Bruxelles, , 483–516;Google Scholar as well as, among a profuse literature, the works of Hess, Zuckerman, Boissevain and Blok quoted elsewhere.

⁴² Wolf, E., ‘Society and Symbols in Latin Europe and in the Islamic Middle East: Some Comparisons,” Anthropological Quarterly, 42:3 (07 1969), 287–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴³ For a broad treatment of these concepts see Eisenstadt, S.N. and Curelaru, M., Macro- Sociology;Google Scholaridem, The Form of Sociology; and Eisenstadt, S.N., ‘The Implications of Weber's Sociology of Religion for Understanding Processes of Change in Contemporary Non-Eufo- pean Societies and Civilizations,” in Glock, C.Y. and Hammond, P.E., eds., Beyond the Classics, 131–55.Google Scholar On the above conceptions see Hahha, S.A. and Gardner, G.H., eds., Arab Socialism, London, E.J. Briell, 1969;Google ScholarMatz, A.J.D., ‘The Dynamics of Change in Latin America.” Journal of Inter-American Studies, 9:1 (01 1966), 66–76;Google ScholarGallagher, C.F., ‘The Shaping of the Spanish Intellectual Tradition,” American Universities Field Staff Reports, 9:8 (1976);Google ScholarWorcester, D.E., ‘The Spanish-American Past. Enemy of Change,” Journal of Inter- American Studies, 11:1 (01 1969), 66–75;CrossRefGoogle ScholarSilvert, K., ‘Latin America and its Alternative Future,” International Journal, 24:3 (Summer 1969), 403–44;CrossRefGoogle ScholarEvers, H.D., Kulturwandel in Ceylon, Baden-Baden, Verlag Lutzeyer, 1964;Google ScholarSarkisyanz, R., Buddhist Backgrounds of the Burmese RevolutionGoogle Scholar, The Hague, , NijhorT, M., 1965;Google ScholarGallagher, C.F., ‘Contemporary Islam; A Frontier of Communalism. Aspects of Islam in Malaysia.” American Universities Field Staff Reports, Southeast Asia Series, 14:10 (1966);Google ScholarPeacock, J., Rites of Modernization: Symbols and Social Aspects of Indonesian Proletarian Drama, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1968;Google Scholar and Milton, R.N., ‘The Basic Malay House,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Malay Branch, 29:3 (1965), 145–55.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ See on this in greater detail Eisenstadt, S.N., Revolution and the Transformation of Societies, esp. chs. IV, V, IX.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ The case of the mafiosi is only an outstanding example of the continuous struggle and imbalance in relations and terms of exchange found in these societies. Examples for Morocco, Latin America, Southeast Asia and Africa proliferate in the literature; for references see Notes 4,33,36,41.

⁴⁶ Paine, R., “A Theory of Patronage,”Google Scholar in idem, ed., Patrons and Brokers in the East Arctic, 3–21.

⁴⁷ This aspect of social ‘insurance” was already emphasized in the work of scholars of Southeast Asia at the end of the sixties and beginning of the seventies (see Scott, J.C., ‘Patron-Client Politics,” as well as the work of R. Lemarchand and K. Legg).Google Scholar

⁴⁸ On ritual friendship see Notes 1 and 18. On the giri system see H. Befu, ‘Gift Giving and Social Reciprocity in Japan’; and Nakane, C., Japanese Society. On ‘pure’ friendshipGoogle Scholar, see Eisenstadt, S.N., ‘Friendship and the Structure of Trust and Solidarity in Society’;Google ScholarPaine, R., ‘Anthropological Approaches to Friendship,” in Leyton, E., ed., The Compact, 1–14;Google Scholar and La-Fontaine, J.S., ‘Unstructured Social Relations.'Google Scholar

⁴⁹ An example of the coercive trend can be found in S. el-Messiri, ‘The changing role of the futuwwa.” On the second possibility see among others Gilmore, D., ‘Patronage and Class Conflict in Southern Spain,” Man, N.S., 12: 3–4(1978), 446–58.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ On machine politics in the U.S. see Wolfinger, R. and Field, J., ‘Political Ethos and the Structure of City Government,” American Political Science Review, 60:2 (1966), 306–26;CrossRefGoogle ScholarBanfield, E., ed., Urban Government, New York, The Free Press, 1969, esp. ch. 3 and 5, 165–265 and 365–425;Google Scholar and Wolfinger, R., ‘Why Political Machines.’Google Scholar On Western Europe see Bax, M., Harpstrings and confessions: A n anthropological study of politics in Rural Ireland, Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, 1973;Google ScholarRichards, P.G., Patronage in British Government, London, Allen and Unwin, 1963;Google ScholarZeldin, T., The Political System of Napoleon III, London, Macmillan, 1958.Google Scholar For the Soviet Union see Frank, P., ‘How to get on in the Soviet Union,” New Society, 5 06 1969, 867–68;Google Scholar and Ionescu, G., ‘Patronage under communism,”Google Scholar in Gellner, E. and Waterbury, J., Patrons and Clients, 97–102.Google Scholar On China see Folsom, K. E., Friends, Guests, and Colleagues: The Mu-fu System in Late Ch';ing Period, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1968;Google Scholar and Fried, M., Fabric of Chinese Society, New York, Praeger, 1973.Google Scholar For the Canadian Arctic see Paine, R., ed., Patrons and Brokers in the East Arctic.Google Scholar For the jajmani system see for instance Breman, J., Patronage and Exploitation, Changing Agrarian Relations in South Gujarat, India, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1974.Google Scholar

⁵¹ See for instance Heidenheimer, A., ed., Political Corruption: Readings in Comparative Analysis, New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970.Google Scholar

⁵² For these trends in pluralistic societies see Dahl, R. A., Polyarchy, Participation and Opposition, New Haven and London, Yale University Press, 1971;Google Scholar and idem, ‘Patterns of Opposition,” in idem, ed., Political Opposition in Western Democracies, New Haven and London, Yale University Press, 1966,332–47Google Scholar, and ‘Epilogue,” in ibid., 387–401. For the Soviet Union see Fainsod, M., Smolensk under Soviet rule, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1958Google Scholar. For the caste systems see Bailey, F. G., Caste and the Economic Frontier, Manchester University Press, 1957;Google ScholarIsaacs, H. R., India's Ex-Untouchables, Bombay, Asia publishing House, 1965;Google ScholarBéteille, A., ‘The Future of the Backward Classes,”Google Scholar in idem, Castes: Old and New, London, Asia Publishing House, 1969,103–45;Google ScholarPubMed and David, K., ‘Hierarchy and Equivalence in Jaffna.'Google Scholar

⁵³ On the patterns of revolt see Miller, N. and Aya, R., eds., National Liberation: Revolution in the Third World, New York, Free Press, 1971;Google ScholarCough, K. and Sharma, H. P., eds., Imperialism and Revolution in South Asia, New York, Monthly Review Press, 1973;Google ScholarSolomon, R. L., ‘Saya San and the Burmese Rebellion,” Modern Asian Studies, 3:3 (1969), 209–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Gobron, G., History and Philosophy ofCaodaism, Paris, Dervy, 1949;Google ScholarGoulet, G., Les soci`;tes secretes en terre d'Annam, Saigon, C. Ardin, 1926;Google ScholarGuerrero, M. C., ‘The Colorum Uprisings 1924–1931,’ Asian Studies, 5:1 (1967), 65–78;Google ScholarKartodiridjo, S., The Peasants’ Revolt ofBanten in 1888, Its Conditions, Course, and Sequel: A Case Study of Social Movements in Indonesia, The Hague, M. Nijhoff, 1966;Google ScholarBenda, H. J. and Castles, L., ‘The Samin Movement,’ Bijdragen Tot de Taal-, Land-, en Volkenkunde, 125:3 (1969), 207–40;CrossRefGoogle ScholarBenda, H. J. and McVey, R., eds., The Communist Uprisings of 1926–1927 in Indonesia: Key Documents, Ithaca, Cornell Univer- sity Press, 1960;Google ScholarMigdal, J., Peasants, Politics and Revolution, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1974;Google Scholar and Ross, S. R., ed., Is the Mexican Revolution Dead?, New York, Knopf, 1966Google Scholar. See also below.

⁵⁴ Hobsbawm, E.Primitive Rebels, Studies in Archaic Forms of Social Movements in the 19th and 20th Centuries, Manchester, Manchester University Press, 1971 (1959);Google Scholaridem, Bandits, London, Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1969;Google ScholarPubMed Cf. Blok, A., ‘On Brigandage, with Special Refer- ence to Peasant Mobilization,” Sociologische Gids, 18:2 (1971), 208–16.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ de-Queiroz, M. I. Pereira, ‘Brazilian Messianic Movements: A Help or a Hindrance to “Participation”?,” Bulletin of the International Institute for Labor Studies, 7 (1970), 93–121;Google Scholaridem, La ‘guerre sainte” au Brésil: Le mouvement messianique du ‘contestado,” Sāo Paulo, University of Sāo Paulo,Google Scholar Arts and Sciences Bulletin No. 187. Sociologia I, 5 (1957);Google Scholaridem, Messianismo e conftito social: A guerra sertaneja do contestado, 1912–1916, Janeiro, Rio de, Civiliza¸ão brasileira, 1966;Google ScholarBenda, H. J., ‘Peasant Movements in Colonial Southeast Asia,” Asian Studies, 3:3 (1965), 420–34;Google ScholarHills, F., ‘Millenarian Machines in South Vietnam,” Com- parative Studies in Society and History, 13:3 (07 1971), 325–50;CrossRefGoogle ScholarDahm, B., ‘Leadership and Mass Response in Java, Burma and Vietnam,” Paper presented to the International Congress of Orientalists, Canberra, Jan. 1971, on file at Kiel University; M. OsborneGoogle Scholar, Region of Revolt: Focus on Southeast Asia, Oxford, Pergamon, 1970;Google Scholar and van-der-Kroef, J., ‘Javanese Messianic Expectations: Their Origin and Cultural Context,” Comparative Studies in Society and History, 1:4 (10. 1959), 299–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁶ Scott, J. C., ‘The Erosion of Patron-Client Bonds and Social Change in Rural Southeast Asia,” Journal of Asian Studies, 32:1 (10 1972), 5–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar