No global South in economic development

Institutional Variety and Ayres-Veblen “Lag”: Implications for Selection and Development

“…The argument here is that institutional variety within the "industrial" sphere is sizable and worthy of attention in its own right. A closer analysis serves to explain the context in which technological change today can contribute to the OIE while drawing on evolutionary perspectives and development phenomena, lest tooeasy or universal inferences and judgments emerge about industrial policy design (Srinivas 2018(Srinivas , 2020). Ayres's emphasis may have been on what Philip Klein (1995Klein ( , 1190 terms pejorative labeling of obstructionist institutions that do not adapt to technological changes "ceremonial, make-believe, status, feudal, taboo, mystic, legendary, mythic, superstitious, etc."…”

“…They have also manifested deep geopolitical and ideological divides from the Cold War politics of capitalism and communism, the deep ravages of war and nuclear arsenal of the superpowers, and the consolidation of powers in the composition of the UN Security Council which belies the one-vote, one-country representation of the UN General Assembly. The calls for solidarity of a "Global South" notwithstanding, a closer scrutiny of economic and industrial development, reveals considerable institutional variety which breaks even the "club" of the Global South and its terminology into industrial categories for further research (Srinivas 2018). It could be argued that the political economy of "varieties of capitalism" to "national systems of innovation" have suffered inherent expost biases in claiming as policy objects what they should be answering (Arocena and Sutz 2000;Albuquerque 2007;Srinivas 2012).…”