Esfuerzos a considerar en los apoyos

From the neo-institutionalist perspective, analysing a social action requires an understanding of the objective conditions (i.e., formal institutions) that surround it and the subjective interpretation actors have regarding the action; this is because actors’ interpretations will differ from one societal context to another. Within the neo-institutionalism school, institutions are seen as not merely formed by material rationality but as a result of complex regulative, normative, and cognitive factors (see Scott, 2008). The informal institutions are crucial factors that have been emphasised by many sociologists as explaining human behaviour within modern organisations (e.g. Meyer and Rowan, 1977; Zucker, 1977). The definition of culture adopted in this case refers to shared beliefs in institutions that have been inherited from the past and which constrain and structure interactions between social actors in the present ( North, Wallis and Weingast, 2013).

Schlumberger (2004; 2008) asserts that the sociological concepts of ‘neo-patriarchy’ and wasta are two key societal institutions that need to be acknowledged in any analysis of the political economies of the Arab world. Those two dimensions are highly likely to be present at the level of the workplace, as will be discussed in the following section.

2.3.3.1 Neo-patriarchy and Wasta

The concept of ‘neo-patriarchy’ refers to ‘the dominance of all men over all women or the dominance of older men over women and younger men’ (Charles, 1993: 88). Hisham Sharabi (1988) was the first author to use the term modern patriarchy or ‘neo-patriarchy’ to describe the nature of the relations between rulers (patriarchs) and ruled in the Arab world. He explains that ‘neo-patriarchal society was the outcome of modern Europe’s colonisation of the patriarchal Arab world, of the marriage of imperialism and patriarchy’ (Sharabi, 1988: 21). Schlumberger (2008: 235) developed the framework of patrimonial capitalism using the concept of neo-patriarchy and argued that the power structure in Arab countries is the ‘logical consequences of a personalised system of political rule and a patriarchal social

fabric’. From this perspective, the patrimonial political structure is seen as being established at the level of the family and then transmitted to wider socio-political relations.

The neo-patriarchal society is considered extremely gender-biased as the male is dominant in most aspects of life (see Joseph, 1996). Within the family, the father (patriarch) does not allow for any equal power as he is considered the sole authority; hence, all his decisions are considered obligatory. In return, he is expected to offer protection, accommodation, and a standard of living to all of his family members; in his absence, the eldest male is expected to perform the same role (Habiba, Ali and Ashfaq, 2016). This paternal arrangement is closely reflected in the socio-political relations between the ruler and his population. Thus, the patrimonial nature of the political system in Arab countries is characterised by subordination to the ‘male’ ruler (the king or president) who is recognised as providing protection and a standard of living for the population (Schlumberger, 2004).

Neo-patriarchal societies conception of the family as the basic entity of society has various implications in the workplace, as argued by Joseph (1996: 195):

Arab economies recognise the centrality of the family in many ways, including through worker recruitment and discipline, wages and benefits … Access to institutions, jobs, and government service is often through family connections.

The practice of privileging friends and family members over unknown personnel is widespread in Arab countries and constitutes a social norm known as wasta. Wasta is an Arabic term meaning intermediary or mediation; it is defined as using one’s personal connections to reach desired materialistic or non-materialistic ends in almost all aspects of life (Sidani and Thornberry, 2013: 75). Barnett and his colleagues (2013: 41) argue that ‘one is said to have wasta when those from whom one can request assistance are in positions of power that make it possible for them to grant the requested assistance’. Wasta is therefore more extensive than nepotism as it includes any use of family, tribe, or friendship networks. What is noteworthy about wasta is that it is embedded in Arabic society and has historically played a crucial role in social interactions for more than 1500 years (Stracke, 2006; Al- Ramahi, 2008). Several authors (e.g. Sharabi, 1988; Schlumberger, 2008; Barnett, Yandle and Naufal, 2013) have argued that wasta maintains and enforces socio-political relations in contemporary Arab countries.

Although some authors view wasta as an ethical crime, others would argue the opposite because it is a virtual social obligation for almost anyone from Arab society. For example, Scott (2001: 74) argues that ‘relations among people or firms that Western eyes would view as involving nepotism or collusion are normal, inevitable, and beneficial to Eastern observers’. Thus, any breach in this informal institution will result in undesirable outcomes such as social isolation, loss of power at work, and potentially losing the loyalty of the family and tribe (Al-Ramahi, 2008; Sidani and Thornberry, 2013). Despite these justifications, wasta nevertheless promotes inequality among businesses as well as workers. Schwarz (2004: 18), for example, argues that:

Rather than labour, personal capacity or merit, it is the personal contact to political decision makers which determines and facilitates how resources are allocated and thus how the material well-being of the individual, the family, the clan etc. is secured.

In the external environment of a neo-patriarchal society, social networks are decisive in enabling firms to obtain credit and to accelerate the process of securing licences and contracts. In addition to developing organisational efficiency and effectiveness, it is a critical factor in enabling companies to successfully maintain a good relationship with principal personnel in the government as wasta is often used to navigate bureaucratic processes (Mohamed and Hamdy, 2008; Sidani and Thornberry, 2013).

Moreover, wasta has implications for managerial practices within organisations as people in authority have an almost ethical obligation to serve their relatives and friends. For example, a job or promotion would be given to a relative or a friend rather than a more qualified candidate who does not have any wasta or possesses a weaker wasta (Joseph, 1996; Schwarz, 2004). In research conducted in a Lebanese telecommunication firm Ezzedeen and Swiercz (2001) found that 65% of the total sample of 129 employees were hired through wasta. Similar findings are echoed in later studies conducted in various countries across the Arab world (Tlaiss and Kauser, 2011; Smith et al., 2012). In contrast, Kilani, Al Junidi and Al Riziq (2015) found that wasta causes conflict between individuals and groups in the workplace by giving benefits to people who might not deserve them. However, these empirical studies were conducted in several Arab countries, most notably Jordan and Lebanon, which differ from Saudi Arabia in many respects. For example, the Saudi private sector is reliant on non-Arab migrants and some occupations are restricted to Saudi nationals

only. Therefore, there are different dynamics at play in the Saudi workplace that are expected to yield results that differ in comparison to other countries.

Having reviewed the main dimensions of the framework of patrimonial capitalism, the next section will present a detailed critique of this approach.