Strategic Industrial Policy and Latecomer Development: The What, the Why and the How

Lauridsen, Laurids Sandager

doi:10.1080/08039410903558244

Cited by 18 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Geographers have long argued that "the state really does matter" under economic globalisation (Dicken, 2011(Dicken, , also 1994 and that transnational capital does not operate in a borderless world (Yeung, 1998a). A number of contributions to international political economy have also demonstrated that the state is of continued relevance in development policy intervention under globalisation (e.g., Carmody, Hampwaye, & Sakala, 2012;Mosley, 2005;Weiss, 2005), including through industrial policy (Gereffi & Sturgeon, 2013;Lauridsen, 2010;Wade, 2010). Yet, it is only more recently that the bridging of insights on the role of the state from literatures in economic development and industrial policy, and in GVCs and GPNs, has begun to gather pace (e.g., Bhatia, 2013;Gereffi & Sturgeon, 2013;Kaplinsky & Morris, 2016).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond facilitator? State roles in global value chains and global production networks

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Designed to break with state‐centric approaches to understanding economic development, global commodity chain, global value chain (GVC), and global production network (GPN) analyses have deepened our understanding of the corporate governance of global lead firms and associated development outcomes in an era of globalisation. Although this research field is recognised to have provided considerable insight into private governance, a rapidly emerging body of research has given greater attention to the role of the state in GVCs and GPN. Although the state playing a role as facilitator towards firms participating in GPNs has often been an emphasis, this article argues that a variety of other roles are of increasing prominence, including as regulator, producer (state‐owned enterprises), and buyer (public procurement). A major challenge for both policymakers and researchers is to understand how a range of state initiatives not just shape but also are shaped by their positioning in GVCs and GPNs.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond facilitator? State roles in global value chains and global production networks

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A final research avenue is the political economy (and politics) of industrial policy. Industrial policy produces winners as well as losers, and it is not obvious that self‐interested political elites and short‐term profit‐seeking business elites are motivated to support formulation and, in particular, implementation industrial policies with a long‐term horizon (Lauridsen, ; ). A first step is to distinguish between early stage industrialization, later stage diversification and last stage catch‐up industrialization, because the difficulties of specific policy tasks and institutional capacities required increase.…”

Section: Industrial Policy In the 21st Century: Promising Research Avmentioning

confidence: 99%

New economic globalization, new industrial policy and late development in the 21st century: A critical analytical review

Lauridsen

2018

Development Policy Review

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

After having been put aside for three decades, industrial policy has reappeared in the research and policy debate on economic development in the Global South. However, it has also been argued that fragmented and decentralized value chains have foreclosed the traditional role of industrial policy. The article reviews three strands of thinking, exploring to what extent and how one can align the call for new industrial policy with the expansion of global value chains? It shows how the research agenda can be moved forward by realigning contributions from global value chain scholarship with researchers who take their point of departure concerning new industrial policy in structural transformation, technological capability and innovation system thinking.

show abstract

“…On the difference between these three processes see e.g. Lauridsen (2010). Though both approaches give priority to the formation of economic institutions that can support economic growth, and of administrative institutions that can effectively implement the above-mentioned policies, there are also major differences.…”

Section: Developmental State or Developmental Governance? Policies Imentioning

confidence: 99%

Governance and Economic Transformation in Taiwan: The Role of Politics

Lauridsen

2014

Development Policy Review

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article analyses the strengths and weaknesses of the developmental‐state approach as compared with a broader and more flexible developmental‐governance approach – in relation to economic transformation in a single case country, Taiwan. It argues that both approaches have strong and weak points, and comes down in favour of the view that it is only through a ‘thick’ study of political forces, processes and circumstances that the reasoning behind developmental policies and institutions can be understood and the processes of economic transformation explained.

show abstract

Strategic Industrial Policy and Latecomer Development: The What, the Why and the How

Cited by 18 publications

References 42 publications

Beyond facilitator? State roles in global value chains and global production networks

Beyond facilitator? State roles in global value chains and global production networks

New economic globalization, new industrial policy and late development in the 21st century: A critical analytical review

Governance and Economic Transformation in Taiwan: The Role of Politics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About