Conclusion: Beyond the Developmental State?

Th is chapter has explored the Developmental State as a theory that explains an empirical puzzle (rapid industrialisation in countries such as Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea), and the subsequent ways in which the literature has endeavoured to produce a general theory of state-led development out of that experience. In this context, the Developmental State can be seen as perhaps the most successful form of state-led industrialisation present in the histori- cal record of the twentieth century. Th e scholarly exploration of the nature of the basis of this success has split into two separate, although fundamentally related, schools. Th e economics school has explored the nature of policies that have facilitated such successful industrialisation strategies as seen in the East Asian context, and have focused on industrial policy. Th e politics school has explored more the nature of the state itself and what characteristics it must possess in order to successfully realise such well-crafted and specifi c indus- trial policy. Th is chapter has rejected such a dichotomy, instead attempting

7 The Developmental State 135

to build an induced theoretical model that combines the thoughts of the two schools so as to generate a more holistic and integrated understanding of the Developmental State paradigm grounded in the fundamentally interrelated concepts of industrial policy and state–society relations. Th is approach has revealed that Developmental State theory has focused on capacity and auton- omy as key concepts to explain successful state-led development, distilling into state–society relations characterised by embedded autonomy.

Th is is by no means the only available option to a state. Instead, alterna- tive Developmental Regimes grounded in diff erent constellations of state–soci- ety relationships can oversee successful periods of development. A successful twenty-fi rst-century Developmental State must therefore move beyond embed- ded autonomy and the narrow factors of bureaucratic competency and its links with business sectors within domestic society (Evans 2008 ). Furthermore, and drawing from the work of Amartya Sen especially, these new state–society mixes should be grounded in processes of democratisation; specifi cally moving away from early Developmental State thinking especially regarding the ‘elec- tive affi nity’ with authoritarianism as identifi ed by Chalmers Johnson. Th is has important implications to the fi eld of international development more broadly. Th e hegemony of neoliberalism in development thinking runs counter to many of the lessons that can be drawn from the late development experience of the NICs and their associated developmental states; something that is not lost on the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) or indeed MINT (Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria, Turkey) countries, who, to varying degrees, engage in state-led industrialisation and development activities that could be characterised under the aegis of the theory of the Developmental State.

References

Caldentey, E.P. 2008. Th e concept and evolution of the developmental state. International Journal of Political Economy 37(3): 27–53.

Chalmers J. 1987. “Political institutions and economic performance,” in Fredric Deyo, ed. Th e Political Economy of the New Asian Industrialism, 136–164. Chang, H.-J. 1993. Th e political economy of industrial policy in Korea. Cambridge

Journal of Economics 16(2): 131–157.

Chang, H.-J. 1999. Th e economic theory of the developmental state. In Th e develop- mental state , ed. M. Woo-Cummings, 182–199. New York: Cornell University Press. Chang, D. 2013. Labour and the “developmental state”: A critique of the develop-

mental state theory of labour. In Beyond the developmental state: Industrial policy into the twenty-fi rst century , ed. B.  Fine, J.  Saraswati, and D.  Tavasci, 85–109. London: Pluto Press.

136 C. Wylde

Cumings, B. 1987. Th e origins and development of the North-East Asian economy: Industrial sectors, product cycles, and political consequences. In Th e political econ- omy of New Asian Industrialism, ed. F.C. Deyo, 44–84. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Cumings, B. 1999. Webs with no spiders, spiders with no webs: Th e genealogy of the developmental state. In Th e developmental state , ed. Woo-Cumings, 61–92. New York: Cornell University Press.

Deyo, F.C. (ed.). 1987. Th e political economy of New Asian industrialism . Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Doner, R., B.K. Ritchie, and D. Slater. 2005. Systemic vulnerability and the origins of developmental states: Northeast and Southeast Asia in comparative perspective. International Organization 59(2): 327–361.

Evans, P.B. 1995. Embedded autonomy: States and industrial transformation . Chichester: Princeton University Press.

Evans, P.B. 2008. In search of the 21st century developmental state. CGPE Working Paper Series , No. 4, December.

Evans, P.B., D. Rueschemeyer, and T. Skocpol (eds.). 1985. Bringing the state back in . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fine, B. 1997. State, development and inequality: Th e curious incident of the develop- mental state in the night-time . Paper to Sanpad Conference, Durban, 26th–30th June.

Fine, B. 2013. Beyond the developmental state: An introduction. In Beyond the devel- opmental state: Industrial policy into the twenty-fi rst century , ed. B. Fine, J. Saraswati, and D. Tavasci, 1–32. London: Pluto Press.

Galbraith, J.K. 2007[1967]. Th e new industrial state. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Gerschenkron, A. 1962. Economic backwardness in historical perspective . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Heymann, D., S. Galiano, C. Dabus, and F. Tohré. 2006. Two essays on develop- ment economics. Estudios y Perspectivas 34. Buenos Aires: CEPAL

Jessop, B. 2008. State power: A strategic-relational approach . Cambridge: Polity Press. Johnson, C. 1982. MITI and the Japanese miracle: Th e growth of industrial policy .

Sanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Kohli, A. 1994. Where do high growth political economies come from? Th e Japanese lineage of Korea’s developmental state. World Development 22(9): 1269–1293. Kohli, A. 2004. State directed development: Political power and industrialisation in the

global periphery . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Koo, H. 1987. Th e interplay of state, social class, and world system in East Asian development: Th e cases of South Korea and Taiwan. In Th e political economy of New Asian Industrialism , ed. F.C. Deyo, 165–181. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. List, F. 1983[1841]. Th e national system of political economy . London: Cass.

Madjd-Sadjadi, Z., and N. Karagiannis. 2007. Modern state intervention in the era of globalisation . Cheltenham: Elgar.

7 The Developmental State 137