in the Third World, in particular the role of the bourgeoisie and its level of
development. Foreign capital is part of the class structure of the peripheral
state. It does more than compete with the national bourgeoisie, however. It
affects the rate and direction of its development. Indigenous classes do not
develop autonomously. They are distorted by the presence of foreign capital
which is not merely another class in competition with indigenous classes
but actually affects the formation and coherence of indigenous classes and
strengthens the mediatory role of the state.
However, a single model of the post-colonial, relatively autonomous and
bureaucratically oligarchic state cannot be applied everywhere. The range
of historical conditions in the Third World is too great.
There is also scope for confusion regarding the concept of ‘overdevelop-
ment’. This concept is applied to the state in relation to civil society and its
class structure, overdevelopment arising from the state’s original need to
protect the interests of imperial capital against indigenous economic inter-
ests or classes. But it is also applied to internal state structures, with the
bureaucracy being ‘overdeveloped’ in relation to other political institutions.
The connection between the two seemingly separate propositions lies in the
argument that the power of the bureaucracy withinthe state enables the state
to maintain a degree of autonomy from any class in civil society even after
independence from the imperial power. The institutions that would allow
classes in society to control or even colonize the state apparatus, and to
dominate the bureaucracy, are insufficiently powerful.
It might also be asked why, particularly when there were no strong
indigenous classes to be subdued, an overdevelopedstate should be needed.
The colonial state at the time of independence in East Africa did not appear
to be particularly strong in terms of civil and military personnel or percent-
age of national income taken by government revenues and expenditure, let
alone overdeveloped. The post-colonial state was typically smaller, relative
to population and size of the economy, than advanced capitalist countries
and less involved in the ownership of productive forces or interventions in
social life (Leys, 1976, p. 42; see also Ziemann and Lanzendorfer, 1977;
Crow, 1990, pp. 211–12).
‘Bureaucratic-authoritarianism’ is a fair description of Latin America’s
militarized regimes, provided that the differences in the regimes and their eco-
nomic policies are also recognized. Further conceptual refinement is needed
in each factor of a ‘constellation’ – regime, coalition and policy – in order to
appreciate the degree and nature of differences between bureaucratic-
authoritarianism and other types of state (Collier, 1979). As an analytical
model it declined in significance in the 1980s as civilian politics was
132 Understanding Third World Politics