The abolition of the han system is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. The majority of daimyos first became government employees, eventually becoming t

The abolition of the han system is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. The majority of daimyos first became government employees, eventually becoming the governors of the prefectures, responsible for their administration with funding from the central state. The Meiji government even paid stipends so that the daimyos could pay their former samurais to disarm. The subsequent reforms (which took years) did transform the state away from the hereditary system but there was a continuity in the administrative apparatus. Likewise when the US occupied Japan after WWII it kept much of that apparatus and slowly reformed it further. Contrast that with Haiti where the vast majority of Haitians weren’t allowed to hold administrative positions in the colonial government so when the remnants of the French bureaucrats fled after the 1804 massacre, Haiti was left with very few people who knew how to run any part of the government. They were left with post offices but without anyone with the experience to actually run a postal system. No officers capable of training and disciplining a police force or military. And so on. They had to build up their bureaucracy entirely from scratch which is an incredibly hard thing to do and usually turns into situations like in Haiti, as opposed to outcomes like Japan where the state isn’t violently wiped clean. It’s hard to overstate how big a roll that continuity plays when a new polity forms in its success or failure.