Beyond the Developmental State: Networks, Politics, and Institutions

Abstract

This article presents a critical review of the statist perspective on East Asian political economy. The statist perspective is found lacking in its claims to explain economic performance, neglectful of intra-state dynamics, and inadequate in its depictions of state-society relations. Studies attempting to remedy these shortcomings through an application of concepts from network theory are also examined. These studies provide a conceptually richer description of state-society interaction. However, they fall short of explaining the essentially political nature of interaction, both between state and society and within the state. New directions for research are suggested.The key elements of the alternative approach are politics, institutions and leadership choice. These factors are widely acknowledged to be mutually influencing; however, the nature of their interrelations is only vaguely understood. A crucial task of research lies in explaining how politics, institutions and leadership choices interact to constitute lines of policy and to shape trajectories of economic development.East Asia's remarkable economic success over the past three decades has bred a powerful new paradigm in the field of development economics and comparative political economy, centering around the concept of the developmental state (Onis 1991).' The paradigm attributes impressive economic performance by Japan and the East Asian Newly Industrializing Countries, especially South Korea and Taiwan, to the choice of efficient, coherent, and flexible economic policies and their effective implementation. Central to the developmental state paradigm are a state structure characterized by executive dominance, bureaucratic unity, and the technical competence of bureaucrats; a large pool of policy instruments, selective and strategic use of resources and instruments; and the political capacity to insulate economic decision-making and implementation from contending political and social interests (Johnson 1982;

The Shetland way: Morality in a resource regime

“…Gellner (1988) postulated that Max Weber's association of a Protestant work ethic and the development of modern European industrial economies was founded on the ethic's ability to engender trust without resorting to external formal sanctions. Moon and Prasad (1994) extended speculation to Confucian and Islamic ethos. Zucker (1986) agreed in principle with an underlying association of trust and morality, but reversed the direction by characterizing development as proceeding through a gradual substitution of informal methods of establishing trust by more formal mechanisms.…”

Embedded state autonomy and legitimacy: piecing together the Malaysian development puzzle

“…Bruno Trezzini: Embedded state autonomy and legitimacy 347 9 Among many others see, for instance, Amsden (1989Amsden ( , 1992, Gold (1986), Johnson (1982, Woo-Cumings (1999), Henderson and Appelbaum (1992), Leftwich (1995) and Wade (1990Wade ( , 1992; for a critical review, see Clark and Chan (1994) and Moon and Prasad (1994). 10 For a similar take on international institutional competition, but with a neoliberal rationale and a more rigorous micro-economic foundation, see Sinn (1992).…”

Don't Discard State Autonomy: Revisiting the East Asian Experience of Development

“…Moon and Prasad (1994), backed by Clark and Chan (1994), extend the definition of 'institution' broader still, using the term in a 'Northian ' (1990) sense to encompass culture, ideology, and informal rules of the game.…”