Abstract

This paper will look into the side-effects of lack of meritocracy and the application of clientelistic practices in transitional societies and less mature democracies that lack pluralistic features. In these countries democratic practices need to be consolidated institutionally and within a normative-utilitarianist mode of governance in order to bring optimum results. Through an overt or covert spec-trum of utilitarianism, lack of meritocracy will be investigated against a number of independent varia-bles such as brain drain, democratization, social stratification and clientelistic practices based on pow-er relations between patron and clients. Implicitly these relate to individual rights and social progress. The approach will seek causation patterns for the application of favouritistic practices through anal-yses of social and political given. In a causal relationship one event precedes another or the second event appears unlikely to have happened without the first even having occurred. The approach adopt-ed is utilitarianist, normative, formulated through a twofold functionalist and liberal prism.

Keywords: meritocracy, clientelism, utilitarianist approach, transitional society.

JEL Classification: D63.

Cite as: Voskopoulos, G. (2017). Defining Elements of Lack of Meritocracy and Clientelism in Transitional Societies and Less Mature Democracies: A Utilitarianist Approach to Rights. SocioEconomic Challenges, 1(4), 50-58. DOI: 10.21272sec.1(4).50-58.2017

References

1. Ackerrnan, J. M. (May 2005). Human Rights and Social Accountability. Social Development Papers, Particgtation and Civic Engagement, Paper No. 86, The World Bank, Washington, p. 2.
2. Arrow K., Bowles, S., Durlauf, S. (eds.) (1999). Meritocracy and Economic Equality. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
3. Blau, J. & Moncada, A. (2005). Human Rights, Beyond the liberal Vision. Rowrnan and Littlefield, Oxford, particularly chapter 1.
4. Blunden, M. and Burke, P. (2009). Democratic Reconstruction in the Balkans for the Study of Democracy. Westminster Unrversrty, p. 41.
5. Bogdanor, V. (ed.) (1991). The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Science. Blackwell, p. 108.
6. Burke, E. (1883). Works. George Bell, p. 17.
7. Buzan, B. (1983). People, States and Fear. The National Security Problem in International Relations, Wheatsheaf, London.
8. Clapharn C. (ed). (1982). Private Patronage and Public Power: Political Clientelism in the Modern State. Pinter, London.
9. Could, C. (1995). Social Justice and the Limitation of Democracy. In Sterna, J., Machan, T. et al. Morality and Social Justice. Rowrnan and Littlefield, London, p. 198.
10. Dahl, R. (1989). Democracy and its Critics. New Haven: Yale University Press, pp. 97-105.
11. Daniels, N. (1978). Merit and Meritocracy. Philosophy and Public Affairs, pp. 206-223.
12. Davis, K. & Moore, W. (1945). Some Principles of Social Stratification. American Sociological Review, n. 10.
13. Durkheim, E. (1956). Education anal Sociology. Free Press, Glencoc.
14. Eisenstadt, S. N. and Lemarchand, R. (eds.) (1981). Political Clientelism, Patronage and Development. Beverley Hills, Calif, Sage.
15. Equality of Opportunity and Education. McCoy Family Centre. for Ethics in Society, Stanford. Available at https://edeo.stanford.edu/sections/meritocracy.
16. Heywood, A. (2000). Key Concepts in Politics. MacMillan, London, p. 17.
17. Jary, D. & Jaiy, J. (1995). Collins Dictionary of Sociology. Harper Collins, Glasgow, p. 407.
18. Kitschelt, H. (1995). Formation of Party Cleavages in post-Communist Democracies: Theoretical Propositions. Party Politics, 1(4), 449-50.
19. Kitschelt, H. (1995). Party Systems in East Central Europe: Consolidation or Fluidity? Studies in Public Policy, N. 241, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow.
20. Livingston, R. (1951). The History of the Pellponnesian War. Thucydides. in War Classics, New York, Oxford University Press, p. 111.
21. Macridis, R. C. (1986). Contemporary Political Ideologies, Movements and Regimes. Little Brown and Company, Boston, p. 25.
22. McLean, I. (1996). Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 3793 80.
23. Meig11an, R. (1986). A Sociology of Educating. Cassel, London, p. 233.
24. Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. Available at https//www.utilitarianism.com.//milll.htm.
25. Miller, D. (1996). Two Cheers for Meritocracy. Journal of Political Philosophy, 4, 277-301.
26. Moore, B. (1978). Injustice: The Social Basis of Obedience and Revolt. Macmillan, London.
27. Parsons, T. (1971). The System of Modern Societies. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
28. Parsons, T. (1977). The Evolution of Societies. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
29. Plamenatz, J. (1970). Ideology. New York, Praeger, p. 15.
30. Popper, K. (1973). The Open Society and its Enemies. Routlege and Kegan Paul, London, 1973.
31. Rush, M. (1992). Politics and Society. Harvester Wheatsheaf, p. 27.
32. Russell, B. (1938). Power: A New Social Analysis. Allen and Unwin, p. 35.
33. Saunders, P. (1992). Social Class and Stratification. Routledge, London, p. 1.
34. Sterba, J. P. & Jaggar, A.M. et al. (1995). Morality & Social Justice. Rowinan & Littlefield, Maryland (“Alternative Concepts of Justice”).
35. Thomas, T., Tuck, R., Skinner, Q., Singer, P. (1992). Great Political Thinkers. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 251.
36. Tumin, M. (1953). Some Pnnciples of Social Stratification: A Critical Analysis. American Sociological Review, 18.
37. Voskopoulos, G. (2004). Political Socialisation as a Means of Consolidating Pluralism and DemocraGy in South East Europe. In Markovich, S., Weaver, E. B., Pavlovic, V. (ed.). Challenges to the New Democracies fn he Ballkans. Anglo-Yugoslav Society, Belgrade.