East Asia and Southeast AsiaAn impressive amount of research has been con-
ducted on the phenomenon of patronage and clien-
tage. In literature, patronage and clientage are
often used synonymously, particularly because
anthropological and social science research uses the
pattern of patron-client relationships to describe
certain forms of dependency and/or loyalty-based
interaction in societies. Both expressions refer to a
male-oriented concept in ancient Rome, in which
the patron (patronus) represented the protecting
partner in a dyadic relationship. The patron was
required to assist the client (cliens) in an emergency
and defend him in trial. Originally, the client, who
always came from a plebeian family, was an obedi-
ent servant, a protégé or a dependent slave,
attached to a patrician family. Even though the ple-
beians were obliged to seek a patrician patron, they
were free to choose the person they preferred. The
client sought the patron’s protection and delivered
services in return. Later on, in the Caesarian
period, the client was usually a poor citizen who
served a member of the nobility and received
accommodation and other privileges in return.
The early Roman relationship of patron and
client implied a reciprocal moral obligation. The
patron was morally required to support the client
in public and private affairs, whereas the client was
expected to display respect and thankfulness for
the support he received. The tight personal rela-
tionship between the patron and the client (and his
household) was initially a clear-cut power relation,
but was gradually transformed into a relationship
of trust and loyalty. The mutual trust as the core
element of the partnership rendered the patron-
client relation a lifetime contract, including the
hereditary right of the descendants to continue it.
As a societal institution, the patron-client relation
was normative in moral rather than in legal regard
(Weber Pazmiño 1991, 18–19). It was normally
men who established the relationship with the
client. The fact that the patronage was extended to
his household indicates that the women and chil-
dren were only “attached” to the contract.
Until the late 1960s, research on the topic was
mainly conducted by cultural anthropologists.
From then on, social scientists joined in to study
patron-client relationships first from a sociological
Patronage and Clientage
and then from a political science perspective. Fol-
lowing the thought pattern of modernization the-
ory, clientelistic relationships were then seen as a
feature of premodern societies, which were re-
garded as underdeveloped. Patronage and clientage
were now mentioned in the context of clan struc-
tures, tribal culture, and feudal forms of interper-
sonal relations between the powerful and the
powerless. As patronage was predominantly asso-
ciated with religiously inspired developments in
social organization, Catholicism became a focal
point for scholars, resulting in extensive case stud-
ies focusing mainly on Latin America and Southern
Europe. The subsequent extension of the geograph-
ical scope of research to Asia, however, challenged
the general belief in the disappearance of patronage
and clientage once modernization has been set into
motion. Theories based on the Western model of
development suggested that in industrialized states
with complex social structures, the importance of
informal institutions, such as patron-client con-
tracts, would gradually be replaced by impersonal,
formally legitimated institutions. This proved to be
a too hastily generalized theoretical idea, as the case
of Japan, one of the most striking cases of non-
Western modernization, demonstrated. In Japan,
familial ideology played an extraordinary role
before the Second World War, when the entire con-
cept of state was based on the principle of the “fam-
ily state,” with the emperor as the godfather of the
Japanese race. After the war, familial ideology
formed an essential part of Japanese company life.
This preservation of traditional values at a time of
rapid modernization became crucial for the revi-
sion of the classic modernization theory.
For advanced analysis of patronage and client-
age, the dynamic character of the phenomenon is
relevant. Clientelistic relationships change not only
according to their respective societal context; they
are also contingent upon the historical setting in
which they constitute a structural element of social
organization. Irrespective of gender aspects and
historical settings, clientelism implies three core
elements: first, social inequality and asymmetry in
the relation of the partners involved; second, the
exchange of goods or services; and third a personal
character of the relationship. Gender aspects of
patronage and clientage relate to all three elements.
Who enters a clientelistic relationship and why?