Intermediate states Intermediate States are defined as collective embedded autonomies in a state between patrimonial and clientelistic norms.

These state can only survive because the personal protection of its own state leader intervention. The intermediary state does not dominate their societies in the fashion of the truly predatory state, but it can construct common projects of accumulation profit in the way that developmental states can. It is extreme organizationally, sometimes intermediate states capable of development transformative change, and certainly often to slip back into predatory patrimonial. Characteristic of intermediate state Using force extensive powers of political engagement to do a lack of a general meritocratic requirement. (still nepotism) Only pockets of efficiency exist (Evans: 1995), which are dependent on the personal protection of individual presidents. South Africa has tried to modernize its bureaucracy by little by little, but the resulting fragmented structure and created difficult policy management also using all facilitation to determined states goals No initiative for long-term commitments by apparatus of the bureaucracy. Have problems in managing lack of a stable bureaucratic structure system. State has always had to deal with corrupt political elites (landed oligarchy) and the presence of foreign multinationals in the domestic manufacturing market creating complex environment for state. Poor linkages with society because state apparatus still work individually (individualized rather than institutionalized). South Africas state has achieved limited successes in some areas where the state organization had excellent coherence and capacity, which in turn facilitated effective linkages with the private sector.

Intermediate between developmental states and predatory states, have less rational or effective bureaucracies as well as less productive relationships with society than do developmental states. Nonetheless, they have pocket of efficiency (Evans 1995:65) and run to play an effective developmental role in some sectors and at certain times. Internally they have bureaucracies that are not patrimonial caricatures but still lack the corporate coherence of the developmental ideal type. Organizationally consistent career ladder that connect individuals to corporate goals while concurrently allowing them acquire the expertise necessary to perform effectively are not well institutionalized. These intermediate apparatus meet more complex and divided social structures with less well-developed bureaucratic capacity and less well-organized external ties.