What do you think?
Rate this book
African Politics in Comparative Perspective
This book reviews fifty years of research on politics in Africa. It synthesizes insights from different scholarly approaches and offers an original interpretation of the knowledge accumulated over the years. It discusses how research on African politics relates the study of politics in other regions and mainstream theories in Comparative Politics. It focuses on such key issues as the legacy of a movement approach to political change, the nature of the state, the economy of a location, the policy deficit, the agrarian question, gender and politics and ethnicity and conflict.
316 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2005
5 people are currently reading
28 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
January 24, 2014
The author Goran Hyden in his book, African Politics in Comparative Perspective, presents an academically thorough review of African politics, economics and institutional design over the last 50 years. He attempts to recount the history of post-colonial Africa to try to better understand why African development has been so difficult to achieve, and better predict what may help ameliorate this situation. Though Professor Hyden does a good job of analyzing African society in a comparative fashion, it is my opinion that his analysis is a victim of some omitted-variable bias which is highly endogenous to the conclusions that he tries to draw.
In the beginning of his book Goran Hyden outlines why he thinks that the attempts to replicate the same institutional designs that are used in the West and in other developing nations cannot be transposed in Africa. His argument is that informal institutions – i.e. cultural and communal design – are more salient and effective than the majority of weak African states. He blames the weakness of the African state on what he calls the “economy of affection” which is essentially a patron-client system. In his view, because of the lack of a state with strong infrastructural power, the informal institutions have made it easier for dictators and autocrats to consolidate power and oppress their citizens politically and economically.
The flaw in this analysis is that Professor Hyden fails to acknowledge the geo-political realities that were present from the period of mass independence that occurred in Africa (1960s) till the early 1990s. The Truman doctrine was announced in 1947 in response to the “Mr. X” paper written by George Kennan where he was advocating that American foreign policy contain the spread of communism everywhere in the world. Africa became a blank canvass for both blocs to assert their hegemony. This influence unfortunately lead to the collapse of several African-state institutions, and made any constitutional institutions irrelevant. When dictators such as Joseph Mobutu, Felix Houphouet-Boigny or Gnassingbe Eyadema could safely rely on the French foreign legion to repel any forms of rebellion or claims to political rights, then it would be natural that grievances would take the form of movements instead of the traditional political path that Hyden discusses in this book.
Aside from his claim that African nations lack a strong bourgeois class to demand certain rights from the state, Professor Hyden’s assertions are disingenuous at best, and at worst alienate African’s as being the only group on earth that cannot institutionalize a strong and effective state. My argument is not that Colonialism, or neo-colonialism for that matter is directly to blame for the collapse of the African state, but it is to make sure that we not rewrite history by omitting a strongly endogenous factor such as the Cold War. Ultimately, Africans have a large role to play in demanding a more inclusive institutional design, but to say that African culture is salient to the point that Africans are incapable of forming an effective state is preposterous.
In the beginning of his book Goran Hyden outlines why he thinks that the attempts to replicate the same institutional designs that are used in the West and in other developing nations cannot be transposed in Africa. His argument is that informal institutions – i.e. cultural and communal design – are more salient and effective than the majority of weak African states. He blames the weakness of the African state on what he calls the “economy of affection” which is essentially a patron-client system. In his view, because of the lack of a state with strong infrastructural power, the informal institutions have made it easier for dictators and autocrats to consolidate power and oppress their citizens politically and economically.
The flaw in this analysis is that Professor Hyden fails to acknowledge the geo-political realities that were present from the period of mass independence that occurred in Africa (1960s) till the early 1990s. The Truman doctrine was announced in 1947 in response to the “Mr. X” paper written by George Kennan where he was advocating that American foreign policy contain the spread of communism everywhere in the world. Africa became a blank canvass for both blocs to assert their hegemony. This influence unfortunately lead to the collapse of several African-state institutions, and made any constitutional institutions irrelevant. When dictators such as Joseph Mobutu, Felix Houphouet-Boigny or Gnassingbe Eyadema could safely rely on the French foreign legion to repel any forms of rebellion or claims to political rights, then it would be natural that grievances would take the form of movements instead of the traditional political path that Hyden discusses in this book.
Aside from his claim that African nations lack a strong bourgeois class to demand certain rights from the state, Professor Hyden’s assertions are disingenuous at best, and at worst alienate African’s as being the only group on earth that cannot institutionalize a strong and effective state. My argument is not that Colonialism, or neo-colonialism for that matter is directly to blame for the collapse of the African state, but it is to make sure that we not rewrite history by omitting a strongly endogenous factor such as the Cold War. Ultimately, Africans have a large role to play in demanding a more inclusive institutional design, but to say that African culture is salient to the point that Africans are incapable of forming an effective state is preposterous.
June 5, 2008
If any book could ruin my passion for Africa, this would be the one. The writing style is inaccessible. Far to much focus on theory rather than people and events. It's poorly structured and would interest only the most scholarly. I'm convinced there exist some good textbooks on Africa out there, this unfortunately is definitely not one of them.
May 29, 2008
words cannot express my hatred for thee....
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews