2
Introduction: Informal Institutions and Economies of Affection in Crisis in Africa
Despite a renewed interest by many social scientists in institutions since the early
1990s, the role of informal institutions has remained understudied. Yet, as Goran Hyden
(2003) correctly asserts, the role of both formal and informal institutions must be
analyzed in order to understand properly the nature of politics and development,
particularly in the African context. This paper demonstrates further that informal
institutions do not exist and operate in isolation of formal institutions, but rather, in a
dynamic interaction with them. Thus, prior to investigating how informal institutions
may affect politics, it is vital to examine the fundamental logic and structure of informal
institutions themselves: 1) what is their meaning?; 2) how extensive are they among
various individuals and groups? and, 3) how do formal institutions such as state policies
and bureaucratic rules affect their meaning and structure?
Hyden’s “economy of affection” in Africa is an ideal place to study the
interaction of formal and informal institutions (Hyden 1980).
1
By doing so, two
important assumptions in the existing literature about the nature of the economy of
affection in Africa can also be investigated. First, many scholars (Hyden 2003; Hyden
1980; Berry 1993) believe that the informal institutions of the economy affection, while
they exist everywhere, are particularly widespread in Africa, involving social exchanges
between the overwhelming majority of men and women from a wide variety of ethnic,
socioeconomic, geographic and age groups. And, second, although not always termed
the “economy of affection,” much of the literature (Hyden 2003; Hyden 1980; Bayart
1993; Joseph 1987; Jackson and Rosberg 1982; Price 1979) implies that that these
informal institutions are relatively more powerful and resilient than the formal rules
Convention