from Part II - Agenda-setting work
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 July 2015
Chalmers Johnson's (1982) MITI and the Japanese Miracle rests on a big empirical puzzle – Japan's extraordinarily rapid growth – and two core claims that have driven the surprisingly resilient research program on the developmental state ever since. The first is that Japan's high postwar growth could be traced to industrial policies that differed from both the “plan ideological” systems of state socialism and the “regulatory state” of Anglo-Saxon capitalism. This branch of the research program attracted by far the most attention because it directly challenged liberal orthodoxy in the economics profession and development policy community. Led by outsiders to that community – Johnson, Alice Amsden (1989), Robert Wade (Wade 1990, 2004; White and Wade 1984), and Ha-Joon Chang (1994) – this line of thinking was subsequently brought into the economic mainstream by economists such as Dani Rodrik (1995) and Joseph Stiglitz (2001), who reiterated the microeconomic logic of state intervention.
The second strand of the developmental state approach probed the political foundations of rapid growth. Industrial policy in the developing world was ubiquitous, but not ubiquitously successful. What accounted for successful industrial policies and the institutions capable of conducting them in the first place? The developmental state literature is typically identified with an institutionalist approach to politics, focusing on the autonomy or insulation of the government from rent-seeking private interests, delegation to lead agencies, and coherent bureaucracies. But Johnson was acutely aware of the centrality of business-government relations to the Japanese model, and subsequent contributions by Peter Evans (1989, 1995) refocused debate on the social foundations of rapid growth.
This second face of the developmental state research agenda developed a particularly strong comparative-historical component. The literature gradually moved beyond Japan and the paradigmatic Northeast Asian cases of Korea and Taiwan to the rapidly growing countries of Southeast Asia and to comparator cases that were distinctly “non-developmental.” This comparative historical research agenda sought to identify the historical sources of development and underdevelopment through close consideration of a small number of cases.
To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.
To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.
To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.