Is Feudalism Back? How Code, Land, and Capital Reshape Ethiopia

When Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed (PhD) sat down with university professors at Addis Ababa University to mark the institution’s 75th anniversary, the discussion was meant to celebrate intellectual legacy and national progress. Instead, it opened a deeper reckoning with Ethiopia’s unfinished break from its past. It was Getachew Reda, a senior political figure and the Prime Minister’s advisor for East African affairs, who framed the moment most starkly. Reflecting on Ethiopia’s long arc of governance, he suggested that beneath successive political systems, a feudal logic has stubbornly endured. “There is a pattern I have noticed when you [Prime Minister] look at the administrations from the great emperor Zara Yakob to the present: we have yet to overcome feudalism,” Getachew said. The Prime Minister, listening with a measured smile, did not dismiss the observation. “I don’t dispute most of your observations,” Abiy said.“While I cannot confirm that feudalism still formally exists, I admit that hierarchical thinking remains firmly in place.” The exchange captured a broader global reality: feudalism, once thought buried by modernity, is resurfacing in new forms — not only in Ethiopia, but across the world. From boardrooms in California to villages thousands of miles away, decisions taken by a handful of Silicon Valley firms now shape how people trade, communicate, borrow and even think. Algorithms, platforms and digital infrastructure built by a small circle of technology companies increasingly exercise a form of power once held by governments, quietly extending across borders and into daily life. This power does not stop at technology. It increasingly determines who can raise capital, whose data becomes valuable, and which businesses are allowed to scale. Scholars describe this concentration of control as a new kind of neo-feudalism, marked by extreme wealth and powerful elites who act as modern-day “lords,” exerting influence over markets and public institutions much like feudal nobles once did over land and people. Even in the United States — often held up as the heart of modern democracy — this logic is becoming visible. Elon Musk, a US-based billionaire, has publicly pushed to dismantle or scale back the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) through his role in the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a White House-backed task force. It is a striking example of how private wealth is no longer merely influential, but increasingly capable of bending the levers of government itself. Half a world away, Ethiopia presents a different, yet familiar, expression of feudal dynamics. Here, the state openly mediates access to land, licences, credit and markets. High-level officials acknowledge that this structure keeps farmers, entrepreneurs and communities in a state of dependency that closely resembles historical hierarchies. Land sits at the center of this system. Ethiopian law is founded on the principle that all land belongs to the state and the people, granting citizens and businesses only use or lease rights rather than private ownership. Rural landholders can farm, inherit or lease land and, under limited conditions, use those rights as collateral. Urban land is distributed through leasehold systems administered by local authorities. While this framework is intended to prevent land concentration and ensure equity, critics argue that it often reinforces centralized control, allowing authorities broad discretion over access and favouring those with political connections — a dynamic that mirrors Ethiopia’s feudal past. “Although the law calls for fair distribution of land, in reality access is extremely difficult, especially for farmers,” said Mellese Damtie (PhD), chairman of the General Assembly of Land for Life Ethiopia. “Many assume there is a surplus of land, but from my observations, that is far from the truth.” He noted that rural households, which make up 70 to 80 percent of the population, often do not possess even a full hectare of land. These small plots must support farming, housing and livestock simultaneously. “At the very least, the broader economy should be generating opportunities for these families,” he said. “But that transformation has yet to materialize.” Over generations, inherited land has been subdivided among heirs, shrinking holdings further and locking families into subsistence farming. The resemblance to classical feudalism — where peasants worked land controlled by nobles under rigid constraints — is difficult to ignore. While Ethiopia’s economy is formally modern, centralized control over land and limited business dynamism reflect persistent neo-feudal patterns. During the anniversary panel, Getachew Reda pointed to this continuity, noting that individuals still seek to act as lords, using land as a source of authority and leverage. “From my perspective, the reason Ethiopia’s feudalism has not transformed into capitalism is that the country’s tax system feeds itself rather than driving transformation through capital accumulation,” he said. Development economist Getachew Teklemariam argued that because Ethiopia’s economy remains largely unmonetized, land continues to define social and economic status. “In countries with a monetized economy, access to and control over capital are the dominant factors in determining class,” he told Birrmetrics. Instead, Ethiopia is experiencing what he described as a transformed, late-stage feudalism. Large landholders wield power over the landless, while market mechanisms are used to exert control — influencing prices, access and outcomes for farmers. “This monopolization of the value chain emerged alongside Ethiopia’s ethnic politics,” he added. “A particular ethnic group now controls the mechanisms determining how products enter and exit the market on behalf of their own community. In urban areas, too, a small number of wealthy individuals dominate major businesses, control access to capital, and oversee exports, effectively setting prices and steering the value chain.” Mikiyas Mulugeta, an independent consultant and analyst, said the persistence of this system reflects an economy inherited from the past, with minimal value addition. “The current system relies primarily on selling what has been inherited, rather than generating new wealth,” he said. He added that successive governments have often abandoned reforms before they could mature, passing unresolved structural problems forward. “This has contributed to widening income inequality,” he said. Ethiopia’s classical feudal system endured for centuries, with land concentrated in the hands of emperors, nobility and the church, while peasants laboured under exploitative conditions. The 1974 revolution dismantled landlordism, nationalised rural land and granted peasants use rights. Yet the post-1991 constitution preserved public ownership of land, maintaining state control even as economic reforms progressed. Today, critics argue that Ethiopia operates under a shadow neo-feudalism, where restricted access to land, capital and markets continues to define social hierarchies. Nowhere is this more visible than in banking. Capital — the lifeblood of a modern economy — remains tightly concentrated. A 2024 National Bank of Ethiopia financial stability report shows that just 0.5 percent of borrowers, those with loans exceeding 10 million birr, control 74.8 percent of all bank credit. Another NBE report found that the top ten borrowers alone accounted for 23.5 percent of total loans by mid-2023, up sharply from the year before. “There is a banking system emerging that rewards large businesses while categorizing smaller ones as high-risk and prone to failure,” said Worku Lemma, a seasoned banking expert. “This concentrates control in the hands of a few and stifles the growth of the sector as a whole.” All this unfolds as Ethiopia, under IMF guidance, pursues sweeping liberalisation reforms aimed at transparency and inclusion. On paper, these reforms challenge feudal logic by elevating market forces. Yet experts remain sceptical. “There are formats being changed in controlling, but you will see the state everywhere in the market,” Getachew Teklemariam said. “I don’t see an economy that works according to the market on the market.” He argued that genuine liberalisation requires curbing monopolies, enforcing competition and reducing state dominance. “These are the basic foundations of market liberalisation,” he said, noting that the government remains an active commercial actor with the ability to tilt the field in its own favour. Mikiyas echoed the concern, pointing to an expanding state commercial footprint and rising bureaucratic barriers. “The government needs to strengthen accountability and address administrative inefficiencies,” he said. As the exchange at Addis Ababa University revealed, Ethiopia’s struggle is not simply economic or technical. It is a deeper battle to dismantle hierarchical thinking — a mindset that has survived emperors, revolutions and reforms, and now reappears in new guises, from land and banks to code and capital.