Political settlements and the analysis of institutions

Abstract

The political settlements framework argues that the distribution of organizational power is important for understanding the economic and political effects of institutions and policies. Institutions and policies describe rules that in turn determine resource allocation, and these can affect different types of organizations in very different ways. Organizations can be expected to support, resist or distort particular institutions or policies depending on their interests and capabilities. The distribution of organizational power can therefore determine the institutions and policies that are likely to persist as well as the ones most likely to be developmental in that context. This directs our attention to the importance of accurately identifying the relative power and capabilities of relevant organizations that describe a particular political settlement and how these may be changing over time. The articles in African Affairs that have used the political settlements framework demonstrate its usefulness. In this overview we examine the motivations behind the development of the framework and some of the challenges of applying it in the context of dynamic interactions between institutions and organizations. We also discuss the most appropriate definition of a political settlement, the questions the framework is most suited to answer and the challenges ahead for developing the framework and its applications.

Rethinking Spatial Inequality in Development: The Primacy of Power Relations

“…Moreover, by emphasising the potentially progressive role of formal (spatially blind) institutions in redressing spatial inequalities, this approach tends to ignore the crucial role of informal institutions in shaping the adoption and implementation of policy decisions in developing country context. As Khan (: 5) reminds us, the implementation of formal state institutions in all low‐income countries is shaped ‘by the significant exercise of power based on informal organizations, typically patron‐client organizations of different types’ (Khan, : 5).…”

“…At the heart of this concept is the argument that developmental outcomes are shaped not so much by the design of ‘good’ institutions, but by the power relationships within which institutions are embedded. Here, the role of inter‐elite power relations is emphasised over institutions because ‘if powerful groups are not getting an acceptable distribution of benefits from an institutional structure, they will strive to change it’ Khan, : 4). The concept of power in this context refers to Khan (: 6) calls ‘holding power’ which refers to ‘the capability of an individual or group to engage and survive in conflicts’ against other elite actors over the distribution of valuable resources.…”

“…From this perspective, similar institutions produce divergent outcomes because the underlying power dynamics between political elites are different. This line of thinking is most strongly exemplified in Mushtaq Khan's () concept of political settlements, which highlights the primacy of power relations over institutions for understanding processes of development and underdevelopment. In identifying the mechanisms through which politics shapes spatial development disparities, a political settlements approach focuses particularly on how elites struggle to gain ‘holding power’ within ruling coalitions and the ways in which these struggles shape the distribution of public resources (Abdulai, ).…”

Economic growth, the UN and the Global South: an unfulfilled promise

“…1 The biggest challenge for multilateralism, even for the NDB and AIIB, remains financing for capability development in such a way that productive firms or organisations can be established to provide gainful and broad-based employment to facilitate structural transformation. But such a result requires appropriate incentives and enforcement mechanisms, and the latter is linked to state capacity, which makes a multilateral approach problematic because it is fraught with collective action problems.…”

“…6 Alternative and unconventional policies are more thinkable today because the longstanding consensus about market-driven development is increasingly contested. …”