This thesis sets out to use the case of Samoa to challenge arguments contained in, the good governance agenda, and a liberal prescription, for civil society. The good governance agenda argues that institutions based on "affective ties" must be eliminated from civil society. It argues that these kinds of institutions inhibit public sector efficiency and brings about or at least facilitates corruption. A liberal prescription for civil society, posited by Ernest Gellner and John A. Hall, advocates that institutions which, rely on rites and rituals to maintain solidarity and cohesion, should not be classed as civil society because they inhibit individual autonomy and freedom. This thesis will demonstrate through a critical review of the literature and through interviews conducted in Samoa that the claims made in both these paradigms give a narrow and incomplete account of; the functions of 'social cages', the impact of "affective ties" on capital accumulation and the role of affective ties vis-a-vis corruption.