Nineteenth-century Japan remains a void in the literature on institutions and growth. Developmental institutions evolved in Japan after the Meiji Restoration despite the absence of political participation. Authoritarian change agents usually face a trade-off between reform and stability: they have coercive power to remove underproductive institutions, but at the risk of inviting instability, as politically influential deprivileged elites may engage in counteraction to recover what they perceive as their entitlement. Many authoritarian regimes, thus, coopt elites by allowing them access to rent, but such buying-off inevitably compromises institutional improvement. How did Meiji Japan overcome this dilemma and liberate major fiscal and administrative spaces for productive players who generate wealth and increase the size of the economic pie for society? This article presents a model that it calls ‘elite redeployment’ to answer this puzzle. In lieu of elite bargains in participatory polities in Europe, the revolutionary authoritarian regime in Japan coercively deprivileged traditional elites and redeployed those with financial or human capital among them in productive institutions. By doing so, the Japanese authoritarian change agents dismantled the incumbent institutions in an irreversible manner and swiftly built new institutions such as modern administrative, educational, financial, and commercial sectors, while maintaining stability.

Recent years have seen considerably more attention being given to constitution-making as a field of deliberate study and practice, particularly with regard to the challenges and opportunities posed by constitution-making in conflict-affected states. A consequence of this work has been a more explicit recognition of the interconnectedness of peace processes and constitutional processes as mechanisms of political settlement. Within this context, this article argues for the more deliberate use of interim constitutions as a peacebuilding mechanism with potential to be effective in highly divided contexts in grounding a more inclusive and sustainable political settlement. This article argues that while interim constitutions are indeed commonly found in conflict-affected contexts, their use appears ad hoc and their design poorly conceived. The article reflects upon the potential strengths and weaknesses offered by interim constitutions in fragile and conflict-affected states. Reflecting on both the existing scholarship and the author’s own practical field experience, the article concludes that if a more modest and realistic approach to what constitution-making can achieve in fragile and conflict-affected states is coupled with more attention to design, interim constitutions can provide space and time to undertake more comprehensive discussions regarding the longer-term settlements.

This article considers the relationship between constitutions and political settlements and locates the special issue articles within this wider discussion. The article points to the apparently paradoxical connection between disillusionment with internationalised state-building techniques on one hand, and increased international faith in constitution-making as a state-building tool on the other. Using understandings of the relationship of the constitution to political settlement which draws on conventional constitutional theory, it argues that the current context of negotiated transitions requires constitution-making to be approached with an eye to the distinctive dilemmas of statecraft that pertain in contemporary transitions. The most central dilemma concerns how power-balances between political/military elites can be broadened to ensure the constitution’s capacity to fulfil its normative role in restraining power and delivering broader social inclusion. The pieces which make up this special issue draw together development and legal discourses. This article suggests how constitutional theory provides a resource for those seeking to promote constitutionalism as a tool for reaching political settlements capable of resolving conflict. It also argues that those who seek to rely on constitutions for conflict resolution need to understand this enterprise as just as political and fraught as all other institution-building efforts.