In simple condensation, and depending on context:
1) Patronage can be a symbiotically conducive relationship, for example, between:
unequals where the superior one can offer aid & protection to the socially inferior one who pledges loyalty & allegiance to the patron as gratitude;
diners & restaurants where variety of meal sets keep the regular customers coming back;
passengers & air carriers where the latter offer loyalty rewards to retain frequent flyers’ patronage; and
non-profit-organisations & influential persons where the latter's appointment as patrons lends more cloud to fund-raising campaigns, can influence policies or sets out to meet relevant objectives.
2) Patronage generally becomes maleficent when there is misuse of public resources or abuse of power for private gain by:
government officials who award lucrative projects to corporate organisations that reciprocate with a board member appointment (remuneration, allowances, perks) to the organisation;
the head of government who appoints politicians to hold office in ministries or government-linked corporations (remuneration, allowances, perks) in exchange for their electoral support;
the political party that goes the distance in favour of their donor’s lobbied interest; or
ministers manipulating public service policies to offer rent-seeking opportunities to cronies.
Patronage in Malaysia has long been institutionalised in past governments. There are no cross-junctions for the politicians in office and their cronies who knowingly enrich each other, as the reward & control dynamics are deeply ingrained in these patron-client bonds. In contrast, political patronage pushes south in many (not all) nations with high per capita incomes in part of their mandates to observe international treaties and the ensuing evolvement of regulatory frameworks to curb corruption that can also arise from unfair practices of patronage.
Not exclusive to political players, patronage is also relied upon within apolitical networks of insider power brokers. They can be fair-weathered friends who have less than a common goal between them, often self-serving (looking to be incentivised) and having the resources to leverage with (capitalising their strengths). Such close-loop arrangement is a foe to transparency, and hinders competitiveness, a bane to any economic growth.
As for the rest, watch out for patronage demands which take shape behind Corporate Social Responsibility endeavours, largely to skirt around legal implications. Although on paper, CSR support for arts & culture projects, scholarship programs, and elevating social impact consciousness or fitness & mental health awareness seem to align with the corporate values of most organisations, only corrupt actors would pull the rabbit out of the CSR hat as a front to:
exploit business opportunities with cohorts only;
serve as a vehicle to launder money;
mobilise slush funds; or
disguise kickbacks as a donation.
Do you think that your organisation has practised patronage? If yes, do you still think that patronage is not within your control? Reach out and let AMSC know!
Comments