Do disparities in early state-building efforts have an impact on support for authoritarian regimes? This paper attempts to find an answer to this question by tracing historical state-building efforts for economic and social development at the local level in Turkey. It then tests for a correlation between provincial disparities and the electoral support for the current incumbent party, AKP. The analysis is built on original historical data gathered from the early statistical yearbooks of the Turkish Republic. By geo-coding annual public investments for transportation, communication, and health at the provincial level during the period between 1923-1964, the paper maps the development of the Turkish state’s infrastructural capacity in its early decades. The data shows a strong correlation between the early efforts to increase state infrastructure and the current regional development levels, suggesting that early state-building efforts had a persistent impact on the existing regional disparities. Provinces who were historically neglected seem to have given enduring support to the AKP at the ballot box, with the exception of the Kurdish majority region. Yet, a regression analysis of local public investments in the 20 years of AKP rule shows that the incumbent party has not favored these under-invested provinces. This finding stands in stark contrast to the electorate’s common belief that voting for the AKP is rewarded with better local infrastructures. Instead, drawing on recent literature and secondary data, I show that the AKP favors its voters in different ways such as expanding public employment, social welfare, and subsidies for private firms in these provinces. Despite perpetuating underdevelopment, short-term benefits create a veneer of higher local growth levels at the expense of economic sustainability and build support for authoritarian rule through clientelism. Overall, this paper suggests that historical regional differences should not be overlooked in research on corruption and the support for authoritarian regimes. By exploring the possibility of applying a similar study for Egypt, this paper concludes with a discussion on the potential implications for other Middle Eastern countries that have historically been marked by high levels of centralization and regional disparities.