Публикация текста об институциональном наследии как ресурсе власти

Institutional Heritage as a Resource and a Frame for New Set-ups of State Power

Mikhail Ilyin

National Research University

“Higher School of Economics”

Abstract. The paper discusses the ways to conceptualize this paradoxical duality of institutional heritage – its momentary functionality hic et nunc and historical accumulation of its potential. To this end, the paper suggests to replace predominant vector-like and single-step patterns of momentary causality with multiple and multi-linear patterns of both causal accumulation and accomplishment. Institutional heritage is a causal drive that acts here and now. However, its moment is not an actual singular force but accumulation of factual and counterfactual conjunctures of political causal factors. Assemblages of such factors reshape and implant into an innate memory of a persisting political tradition with each of its reproductions. The testing grounds are instances of disequilibria of establishes patterns of state power and influence. New patterns of power and influence as well as new networks of states seem to emerge. They serve and most probably will serve as nuclei for ensuing convergence of world order as long as ‘outdated’ or ‘dysfunctional’ configurations of state power and influence reshape into novel structures and practices of governance good enough for the context our current crisis. Patrimonial heritage with its potential for overall integration as well as imperial heritage with its conventions of indirect rule may provide blueprints for possible solutions. In any case, it is discernible that old set-ups should transform into much broader configurations linked by reflexive loops democratic accountability.

Key words. Institutional heritage, evolutionary prototypes, replication, patterns of order, power

Conventional wisdom of mainstream political science focuses on instant causes of political activities. At best, it takes into account immediate sequences of actions and events. It is valid even for much more advanced and sophisticated historical institutionalism, which implies that institutional heritage primarily accounts for the demarcated outlines of path dependence. As long as its rigid edges erode (alongside with institutional heritage) critical junctures emerge. They open windows of opportunities to install new institutional set-ups that are both innovative and downright original. By default, such new inventions are superior to old tricks and redundant garbage of the past.

The assertive wisdom of rectilinear political progression with its vector logic and widespread contempt for ‘outdated’ institutional formats ignores historical heritage or reduces it to a simple momentary factor with minimal internal structure or logic of its own. Alternative assumptions imply that political evolution accumulates a wide array of structural and agential options beyond and above the actual sequence of factual outcomes of political dynamics. There is a clear need to replace predominant vector-like and single-step patterns of momentary causality with multiple and multi-linear patterns of both causal accumulation and accomplishment. It is evidently true that institutional heritage is a causal drive that acts here and now. However, its moment is not an actual singular force at a top a vector but accumulation of factual and counterfactual conjunctures of political causal factors. Assemblages of such factors reshape and implant into an innate memory of a persisting political tradition with each of its reproductions.

Reevaluation of basic assumptions

In a critical reevaluation of our assumptions and patterns of vision, I employ causal structures that can explain both current political formats and the role of historical heritage in settling them up. One would only agree with Peter Hall, “What do we see when we look at the political world across space and time? In large measure, that depends on what we are looking for and the lens through which we look. This is as true of political science today as it was of seventeenth century scientists looking for phlogiston through rudimentary microscopes. Our methods and assumptions about what we should see, notably about causal structures in the world, condition what we find” (Hall 2016, p. 31).

What is outlook the outlook Peter Hall advocates and the lenses that he suggest to apply? His answer is clear and sharp, “To take such an approach means embracing models of the polity that acknowledge the impact on political action of the social, economic and political structures in which actors are embedded at a particular time or place and considering how events not only affect the immediate outcome of interest but also restructure the institutional or ideological setting in ways that condition outcomes in later periods of time” (Hall 2016, p. 32 ?).

At a first glance, a regular line of triumphant factual outcomes may look natural, evident, undisputed and obdurate in commonplace reading of laypeople as well as in the mainstream political scholarship. In fact, those path-like series are hardly ever happy, consistent or optimal. Moreover, they are typically ambiguous, contingent and largely unhappy. They are capricious combinations of institutions and practices that adjust to mutable settings and altering contexts. Varying conditions actually render then ether functional or dysfunctional as the cases may be. In the end, flaws and blemishes of inconsistent factual sequels of political arrangements enhance both structural need and agential desire for an overall alteration and change. Critical junctures are not abrupt contingencies but rather entailed and accumulated effects of the leap from trial and error selection to a radical and massive morphological recombination.

The proposed alternative vision of political dynamics departs from a set of basic assumptions that go beyond politics or human sociality straight to biological foundation of our existence. Such a radical passage entails a gross reduction, but it allows getting down to basics. Humankind emerged in a metamorphosis of certain population of primates of homo genus into a species of homo sapience. This metamorphosis was not only a biological mutation but also an addition of unprecedented social abilities. Would be humans reproduced themselves as symbiotic creatures with new abilities of cognition and communication. Those abilities allowed our ancestors to undertake a parallel reproduction but not of a species but of humankind. Symbolic multiplication of behavioral patterns provided pragmatic abilities to create alternative options and conditions that were not biologically determined.

Humans reinvented biological ability to program genetic reproduction as a social ability to program institutional reproduction. The same way as DNA works as a matrix for RNA to become a deliverer of programs for human cells and/or organs as well as an entire body, human semiotic matrixes provide cognitive and communicative programs for social interaction and framing social order.

From basic assumptions through evolutionary prototypes to theoretical models of institutional evolution

Emergence of human entities (societies, communities, social bodies – a very telling metaphor) rests on the same, or slightly more distinct and lucid principles of biological ontogeny. Further simplification can add coherence to the principles and reveal the minimal algorithms of morphogenesis. It was Alan Turing who aptly projected a mechanism of morphogenesis decades before modern genetics finally re-discovered the formation of similar patterns in far more subtle form of genetic reproduction (Turing 1952). He uncovered diffusion of two different chemical signals, one activating and one deactivating growth. Their interaction sets up patterns of form building or morphogenesis.

Patterns of genetic reproduction further improve and perplex elementary morphogenetic principles. As a result, genetic infrastructure builds on DNA as a universal matrix that serves RNA polymerase and other so-called transcription factors to work out algorithmic instruction for biogenetic reproduction of proteins, sells, tissues, sells and even organs.

Genome prototype along with its actual embodiments are extremely sophisticated agency of genetic reproduction and replication. However, there are still more advanced consciousness prototype that are still unexplored. We still miss adequate models of autopoetic consciousness, memory, social cognitive replication and pattern-formation.

All we can say now is that alternative prototypes of various complexity nest (interlock each other) in the Russian nesting doll manner. The interlocking nest includes reaction–diffusion algorithms, genes, memory as its most conspicuous variations.

Advancement from evolutionary prototypes to theoretical models of institution building embarks with Turing interaction of two alternative commands – one activating and another deactivating growth. It proceeds through progressive ranks of ever further composite pattern-formation or social replication. Same patterns reproduce themselves with subtle changes and increments in a range of complex forms of human behavior and customized practices. Well-established practices boil down to rules (c.f. Turing commands as their evolutionary prototype). Social scientists call those rules and regulatory patterns institutions (North 1990; Hodgson 2006) and research them extensively. However, we still do not know how institutions regulate social order and behavior – at least much less then biologists know how genes regulate organic life.

Elementary patterns are dual. They derive from Turing pair of activating and deactivating commands but display inclusion and exclusion, cleavage and compaction, divergence and convergence, homoarchy and heterarchy, advance and retreat, challenge and response. The list of dual patterns is open. With all its variation, each pair coherently reveals the same pattern of the antinomy logic (Kant 1781) of double movement (Polanyi 1944) or Turing morphogenetic prototype.

Dual patterns account for individual instances of replication. Such instances are not isolated. They range into sequences of replication. In turn, those sequences reshape into cumulated stages of cleavage and compaction, divergence and convergence, homoarchy and heterarchy, advance and retreat, crisis and breakthrough. Protracted cycles of development emerge as outcomes of the multilinear sequencing.

Within sequences of replication, new social orders and institutions emerge as re-inventions of old ones of the previous cycles. The paper discusses the ways to conceptualize this paradoxical duality of institutional heritage. Kantian antinomy as an analytical principle along with prototypes of convergence and divergence, inclusion and exclusion, homoarchy and heterarchy, etc. help to clarify respective concepts and analytical instruments. It is reasonable to replace vector-like and single-step causality with multiple and multi-linear patterns of causation. Numerous and alternative tracks of trial and error selection reach critical junctures of disequilibria, untangle and bestow volatilities for a radical and massive morphological recombination that result in restoration of punctuated equilibrium.

Morphological reshaping or metamorphosis of political orders entail a wide range of instances. They are patterns of additional and thus non-biological counterfeit imitation of biological reproduction by primates leading to emergence of primary human arrangements or human condition leading to anthropo- and sociogenesis.

Primary institutional stage of anthropo- and sociogenesis reveals in a very simple and evolutionary early Proto-Indo-European conceptualization of basic human conditions. Its cognitive scheme is reconstructed as *priyo. Its later derivatives are freedom, peace and friendship. It is opposed to active destructive agency of war (*wreg) and the inactive influence of need (*neu-d). This schematic opposition of human / inhuman works as the conceptual base of the order / disorder opposition. It is the initial point of both conceptual and institutional history of power and freedom.

Historical validation of theoretical models.

Anthropologists and archeologist who studied early stages of social evolution are able to detect, document and elucidate basic patterns of homoarchy and heterarchy. American anthropologist Carole Crumley defines heterarchy as "the relation of elements to one another when they are unranked or when they possess the potential for being ranked in a number of different ways" (Crumley 1995). Her Russian colleague Dmitri Bondarenko argues that heterarchy is not strictly the opposite of hierarchy, but is rather the opposite of homoarchy. He defines it as "the relation of elements to one another when they possess the potential for being ranked in one way only" (Bondarenko 2007).

The universal principle of inclusion and exclusion could produce a number of evolutionary and historical prototypes depending on the scope and media of inclusion, its agency and manner as well as the character of the results achieved or pertaining order. The scope and media are interrelated. The greater is the scope of inclusion the more advanced communication medium provides it ranging from oral speech to global electronic networks of communication.

The agency and manner of inclusion characterize who decides whom to include and what procedures are used, e.g. coercion or consent.

The character of the established order may be centripetal or centrifugal, heterogeneous or homogeneous, equalitarian or stratified.

So far we have discussed primary prototypes, i.e. inclusion into an individual group and the relevant order therein. Such instances are rear. They are the cases of isolated, secluded or out-of-the-way groups that can emerge and exist exclusively on their own. Inclusion there is fairly straightforward and emerging order simple. It can be properly referred to singular proto-citizenship.

Far more common are intricate spin-off groups that coexist, intersect and even integrate with each other. Their prototypes are those of multiple inclusion. Some variants of inclusion are possible only with individuals and groups that undergone primary earlier inclusion. Thus, building polis community imply primary inclusion of tribes, common-ancestry lineages (φ(ρ)ατρίαί) and extended families (γένη). Secondary inclusion into already existing polis or rather artificial creation psedo-natural groups like deme or trittyes (τριττύες). Equally, nation-state inclusion imply that you integrate people who are already members of estates, social orders, corporations, municipalities etc.

Gradual development of homogeneous and egalitarian primitive bands to heterogeneous and stratified asymmetrical chiefdoms produced new options. With chiefdoms getting upper hand over other chiefdoms and tribes, with an emergence of tribal federations with or without poleis the ruler or rulers could not be maintained over populace on a regular basis. Respective structural and morphological development were triggered by the need to maintain order when direct oral communication, and to that effect getting input to work out common goals, to give orders and check their implementation became highly problematic or even impossible. The authority was de facto structurally detached from the general populace often dispersed over sizeable territories. New ways of dealing with the challenging new circumstances had to be developed.

Morphological solution of the problem was quite self-effacing and straightforward. It was creation of a link or medium between the authority and entire populace. Specifically patrimonial solution for the problem of polity overextension reshaped tripartite division as essential unity of the prevailing authority (quasi-patriarch, housemaster) and the entire populace (quasi-kinship, kinfolk, domestics, householders) provided the linkage between them (quasi-household, its instrumental aspects and symbolic representations as common legacy). The last component worked as a crucial integrative device.

Prototype of patrimonial brotherhood had not replaced the primordial one but supplemented and integrated it. It was a first instance of multiple inclusion and compound order. All the further institutional innovations and setups followed the precedent.

Each of the structural units of patrimonial brotherhood - authority, medium and populace - actually utilized primordial approach to inclusion. Further integration of patrimonial prototypes with more advanced and complex arrangements produced far more assorted and divergent patterns of organization. Patrimonial component in such cases served an important function to compensate the structural and managerial gaps that cropped up with political transformations and growth.

A number of historical types with distinct patrimonial input were described by Max Weber under the rubric of patrimonialism. They include traditional patrimonialism (Patrimonialismus), sultanism (Sultanismus), estate domination (ständische Herrschaft) as well as more recent Caesarismus (Cäsarismus), rule of officials (Beamtenherrschaft) and plebiscitary domination (plebiszitäre Herrschaft).

There is abundant literature on neo-patrimonialism. Views on the ability of patrimonial orders or rather patrimonial component of complex orders to serve as vehicle of modernization and even democratization are quite controversial. Majority of authors stress dysfunctionality of patrimonialism. On the other hand there are authors who recognize its functionality, particularly in the context of reforms. Christian von Soest, for example, insists that some patrimonial regimes are fairly accountable to public opinion and promote efficiency reforms (Soest 2007). Furthermore, in his article “Can Neopatrimonialism Dissolve into Democracy?” Mamoudou Gazibo fairly convincingly showed that neopatrimonialism could fuse with democracy within hybrid regimes of “new democracies” in the post-Communist space or “third wave democracies” in Latin America (Gazibo 2012).

Re-invention of polis citizenship is a vivid example of the use of institutional heritage. Social memory of primary solidarity was instrumental to counter tribal degradation. It allowed on a far greater scale of social integratioin to produce polis citizenship. Solon’s Seisachtheia clearly demonstrates the logic of institutional re-invention. Patterns of tribal freedom, solidarity and power evolved into patterns of civic freedom, civility and political (polis) power.

Waves of inclusion and exclusion allowed working out rules of access and its restriction. Elaborate forms of regulation of access emerged. Limited and open access orders are conceptual tools for the later stages of their evolution (North, Wallis & Weingast 2009).

Citizenship in its narrow sense of membership in a nation state is quite new - both as a phenomenon and a notion. "It was only in 1792 that it (the word citizen - M.I.) was first used to a member of a state" (Magnette 2005, 5). The term citizenship designating nation state membership is still more recent. "A few decades later appeared the citizenry derivative (1819), which means the civic body, and citizenhood (1871), synonymous with what we call today citizenship. It is only in the second half of the second half of the twentieth century, and even more so since the 70s, that the word is in constant use and that it has taken on a clearly political meaning. The same evolution is found in other European languages" (ibid).

Nation states are also recent phenomena. The term implies the combination of a nation and a state. Such blends have been very uneasy products of the two parallel processes of nation-building and state formation. The interrelation and relative autonomy of those two processes was clearly identified in political science only in the 1960s but they actually started much earlier, at last as far back as the European Renaissance. The consolidation of sizable linguo-cultural communities within Respublica Christiana was re-conceptualized in terms of a common ‘origin’ or nation. Just as the polis transformation was imagined as the artificial re-creation of kinship on the scale of the city, the modern overhaul was thought of as a similar development on much greater territorial scale.

This new scale of nations did not automatically coincide with new political frameworks of sovereign domination. Early Modern times give examples of states within nations and nations within states. It was only in the 19th century, in particular, with unification of Germany and Italy that the nation state configuration gained prominence.

The word state appeared early in the 16th century (Skinner 1989; 2010). It referred then not so much to a distinct morphological unit of politics but rather to assorted territorial units of very diverse nature that strived to build up partnerships for mutual survival. To that effect, they recognized the legal equality and ultimate authority of each other along with fixed boarders. Such an experiment initially took place in Italy after the Peace of Lodi in 1456 and helped to interrupt a long sequence of wars for the next four decades. Many parties to the Peace of Westphalia would not pass even very modern criteria for statehood. It was only after the Vienna Congress that the structural affinities developed by participants of a successive international systems made them look like states. So, it is not by chance that citizenry entered English political vocabulary just after the Congress of Vienna, citizenhood after modifications to the Vienna system in 1871, and citizenship was firmly established only in the 20th century.

All through the nascent period of nation states persons belonging to these first territorial units were called and treated as subjects. Imperial, patrimonial and other old-fashioned constituents of modern political forms and corresponding concepts dominated long into the next century. They are still apparent and effectual even with much advanced democracies. With autocracies, anocracies and many new democracies that emerged only in recent decades, patrimonial and imperial patterns often continue to prevail. They are still apparent and effectual even within advanced democracies. In actual fact, nation states have always been, and still are, assorted patchworks of overlapping configurations of inclusion as heterogeneous countries like Switzerland and Belgium clearly prove. But a closer look at "homogeneous" countries like Denmark or Portugal also confirms a multiplicity of inclusions and specific "citizenships" (corporate, neighborhood etc.). 

With all the intricacy of multiple citizenships and patterns of inclusion, it is the legal bond with territorially defined domains of power that plays the key role. The territorial borders of states work essentially to establish crucial distinguishing factors. This simplifies and rationalizes inclusion, but at the same time complicates it. In fact, the distinction between internal and external is ambiguous since each individual state has its own perspective and point of departure. States may have shared segments of their borders, but they often operate quite differently from their opposing sides.

Nation state citizen corps can be defined as networks of formal depersonalized contractual partnerships. Such citizenship networks are autonomous to varying degrees but they make up authoritative functional hierarchies with a seat of common sovereign authority at the top acting on behalf of the whole national body. In its turn, the interdependent territorial frameworks for overlapping citizenship networks were conceptualized as sovereign states.

The modern concept of citizenship is based on the principle of autonomy. It is the key to the citizens role and place in modern society. The emergence of an autonomous possessive individual—epitomized, for example, by Robinson Crusoe—was only a beginning. It was coupled with new re-conceptualization of rights and duties. Citizens could be considered equal subjects of the sovereign state entitled to a set of granted rights by virtue of inclusion, or autonomous participants that can gain civil (political) rights by virtue of qualified participation in the state-size networks of trust. During the Putney debates, the first option was advocated by a "democratic" colonel, Tom Rainsborough, and the second one by "autocratic" general, Henry Ireton. Analytically, one can consider whether rights qualify the nature of inclusion or if inclusion provides rights. Equally, long estranged rights and duties could be interpreted as the one conditioning the other or vice versa.

Reinventions were instrumental in reshaping dysfunctional customs and practices of Early Modern (proto-modern) governance (uneasy compacts of ‘powers that be’ or stalemate rivalry of factions) into functional establishments of Modernity be they constitutions with separation of powers or parliamentary and electoral conventions with regular party completion

In its concluding part the paper discusses two crises or rather a dual crisis. Its first phase expanded in early 90s. It involved the demise of super-power world order and collapse of the USSR. While the US hegemony make-up seem to supersede the crisis for a period, its greater momentum of divergence (visualized superfluously by symptoms of state failure and interstate disarray) still overtakes. It resonates with a supplementary crisis that overruns the short-lived US hegemony and provokes contest for alternative hegemony arenas and loci, grades and stations. The local ‘revolutions” and ‘springs’ of all kinds and brands along with secession attempts are probably graphic expressions of this dual crisis.

Possible outcomes of the dual crisis are dim. Analysis focuses on abstruse potential of outwardly dysfunctional (for established mindsets) formats that may evolve into functional ones (for critical mindsets). The testing grounds are instances of disequilibria of establishes patterns of state power and influence. Varieties of ongoing morphological makeovers remain fuzzy for the moment. Instances of convergence still give way to overriding divergence of power and influence networks within the global community of states.

Nevertheless, new patterns of power and influence as well as new networks of states seem to emerge. They may serve and most probably will serve as nuclei for ensuing convergence of world order as long as ‘outdated’ or ‘dysfunctional’ configurations of state power and influence reshape into novel structures and practices of governance good enough for the context our current crisis. Patrimonial heritage with its potential for overall integration as well as imperial heritage with its conventions of indirect rule may provide blueprints for possible solutions. In any case, it is discernible that old set-ups should transform into much broader configurations linked by reflexive loops (evolutionary trend for a few centuries) and subsequent patterns of multiple and mutual accountability often prematurely and one-sidedly termed democratic accountability.

References

Abbott, Andrew. "Transcending general linear reality." Sociological theory (1988): 169-186.

Abbott, Andrew. "Sequence analysis: new methods for old ideas." Annual review of sociology 21.1 (1995): 93-113.

Abbott, Andrew. Time matters: On theory and method. University of Chicago Press, 2001.

Aus, Jonathan P. "Conjunctural causation in comparative case-oriented research." Quality & Quantity 43.2 (2009): 173.

Baskin, Ken, and Dmitri M. Bondarenko. "The role of complexity studies in the emerging “processual” worldview." Emergence: Complexity and Organization. 2018 Mar 31 [last modified: 2018 Apr 22]. Edition 1. doi: 10.emerg/10.17357.c45145a20b3f2d103812be2e83d91f52

Beach, Derek, and Rasmus Brun Pedersen. Process-tracing methods: Foundations and guidelines. University of Michigan Press, 2013.

Beach, Derek, and Ingo Rohlfing. "Integrating cross-case analyses and process tracing in set-theoretic research: Strategies and parameters of debate." Sociological Methods & Research 47.1 (2018): 3-36.

Bondarenko, D. M. "What Is There in a Word? Heterarchy, Homoarchy and the Difference in Understanding Complexity in the Social Sciences and Complexity Studies. Explorations in Complexity Thinking/Ed. by KA Richardson and P. Cilliers, pp. 35-48. Mansfield, MA: ISCE Publishing." (2007).

Bondarenko, Dmitri M. "Homoarchy as a Principle of Sociopolitical Organization. An Introduction." Anthropos (2007): 187-199.

Borgna, Camilla, and E. Struffolino. "Configurations or trajectories? No need to choose. Applying sequence analysis and QCA to gender inequality in the labor market trajectories." IPSA 2016 Congress, Poznań, Poland, 2016.

Crumley, Carole L. "Heterarchy and the analysis of complex societies." Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 6.1 (1995): 1-5.

Crumley, Carole L. "Remember how to organize: Heterarchy across disciplines." Nonlinear models for archaeology and anthropology(2005): 35-50.

Cariani, Peter. "Time is of the essence." Proceedings of A Body of Knowledge - Embodied Cognition and the Arts conference. CTSA UC Irvine. 8-10 Dec. 2016, 889-903. Publication Date: 2018-01-08. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/84w6d37j .

Cariani, Peter. "Temporal memory traces as anticipatory mechanisms." Anticipation and Medicine. Springer, Cham, 2017. 105-136.

Hall, Peter A. "Politics as a process structured in space and time." The Oxford Handbook of Historical Institutionalism (2016): 31-50.

Hodgson, Geoffrey M. "What Are Institutions?" Journal of Economic Issues 40.1 (2006): 1-25.

Hodgson, Geoffrey M., and Thorbjørn Knudsen. "Why we need a generalized Darwinism, and why generalized Darwinism is not enough." Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 61 (2006): 1-19.

Hodgson, Geoffrey M. "Karl Polanyi on economy and society: a critical analysis of core concepts." Review of Social Economy 75.1 (2017): 1-25.

Hornborg, Alf, and Carole L. Crumley. The World System and the Earth System: global socioenvironmental change and sustainability since the Neolithic. Routledge, 2016.

Gazibo, Mamoudou, 2012. “Can neopatrimonialism dissolve into democracy?” — Daniel Bach and Mamoudou Gazibo, eds., Neopatrimonialism in Africa and Beyond. London and New York: Routledge, 79-89.

Kant, Immanuel. Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Hamburg: Meiner. 1781.

McCulloch, Warren S. "A heterarchy of values determined by the topology of nervous nets." The bulletin of mathematical biophysics7.2 (1945): 89-93.

McCulloch, W. St. "Toward some circuitry of ethical robots or an observational science of the genesis of social evaluation in the mind-like behavior of artifacts." Acta Biotheoretica 11.3-4 (1956): 147-156.

Misangyi, Vilmos F., et al. "Embracing causal complexity: The emergence of a neo-configurational perspective." Journal of Management 43.1 (2017): 255-282.

North, D. C. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. N.Y.: Cambridge University Press. 1990

Polanyi, Karl. The Great Transformation. Foreword by Robert M. MacIver. New York: Farrar & Rinehart, 1944

Poon, Simon K., Su Henry, and Niku Gorji. "A Network-Based Deterministic Model for Causal Complexity." Proceedings of the 51st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. 2018.

Skinner Q. 1989. The State. — Ball T., Farr J. Hanson R. L. Political Innovation and Conceptual Change. Cambridge: CUP, pp. 90-131.

Turing, Alan Mathison. "The chemical basis of morphogenesis." Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 237.641 (1952): 37-72.

North, Douglass C., John Joseph Wallis, and Barry R. Weingast. Violence and social orders: A conceptual framework for interpreting recorded human history. Cambridge University Press, 2009.

Soest von, Ch. 2007. “How Does Neopatrimonialism Affect the African State? The Case of Tax Collection in Zambia.” Journal of Modern African Studies 45: 4: 621-45.