Neopatrimonialism can extend the reach of the state into the geographical and social peripheries of the country, provide short term stability, and facilitate communal integration.
Neo-patrimonialism, as defined by author Christopher Clapham of The Nature of the Third World State, is a "...form of organisation in which relationships of a broadly patrimonial type pervade a political and administrative system which is formally constructed on rational-legal lines."
[4] Being the vertical distribution of resources that give rise to patron-client networks based around a powerful individual or party, neopatrimonialism was once argued as necessary for unification and development after decolonization.
Neopatrimonialism is not seen as a synonym for corruption, but a distinct form of acquiring legitimacy and of dealing with difficulties in statecraft specific to Africa deeply rooted from pre-colonial times.
[7] Van de Walle introduces the notion that in Africa, states are hybrid regimes where patrimonial practices and bureaucracies coexist to a higher or lesser degree.
African states have laws and constitutional order and in parallel are ruled by patrimonial logic in which political authority is based on clientelism and office holders constantly appropriate public resources for their own benefit.
The dual nature of African regimes means that clientelism is not incidental and cannot be easily corrected with capacity building policies and at the same time formal structures play an important role, even in the least-institutionalized states.
As African countries accumulated massive amounts of debt caused by global recession and inflation from the OPEC oil embargo, the neopatrimonialist links that helped solidify legitimacy for regimes began to weaken.
[8] In a 1994 study, Michael Bratton and Nicolas Van de Walle argue that the prevalence of neopatrimonial regimes in Africa explains why many African states have not successfully democratized.