In a region beset by ineffectual or predatory neopatrimonial rule, Mauritius stands out in contrast. Its postcolonial governments have pursued similar goals to those proclaimed in most African countries: economic growth, equity, national autonomy, and freedom. Its governments have also designed typical policies since 1968 to achieve these goals: a heavily interventionist state involving a myriad of regulations and controls, protected import-substitution industrialization, the establishment of an Export-Processing Zone, and gradual market liberalization (starting in the 1980s). However, in contrast to nearly all sub-Saharan countries, Mauritius has made steady progress in attaining its ambitious goals. This underdeveloped and racially stratified country has achieved not only sustained growth, but a degree of equity, a remarkable welfare state, and a consolidated democracy. Although the reasons for this success are diverse and contested (Subramanian and Roy 2003), that Mauritius has avoided economically debilitating neopatrimonial rule (see Sandbrook 2000, 17–19 and ch. 5) is of key importance. Instead, a social-democratic developmental state has boldly orchestrated strategic responses by private firms to changing market conditions for more than twenty years, in the process defying free-market orthodoxy.

Why has this activist state succeeded whereas others, attempting the same sort of strategy, have dismally failed? To promote equity with growth in a largely market economy, governments require not only a relatively substantial degree of autonomy from capital, but also sufficient bureaucratic capacity to design and implement market-conforming industrial and social policies. In addition, strong democratic institutions based on a vibrant civil society must develop.