Theory and practice of State intervention: Italy, South Korea and stages of economic development

Abstract

Strategies of economic development differ widely in terms of approaches to State intervention. However, across countries, certain policies tend to prevail at specific stages of development. For example, the Italian and South Korean cases, analysed in this paper, suggest the prevalence of sectoral policies at early stages, followed by a reorientation towards microeconomic policies at later stages. The paper interprets this trend through the viewpoints of three theoretical perspectives: structural, allocative and evolutionary. The historical and theoretical analysis of the paper shows that, even if each stage of development is characterised by the prominence of a specific policy over others, a mix of policies is pursued at each stage. In addition, the functions of each policy approach vary depending on the stage. This finding highlights unexpected linkages between theory and policy, and the need to consider different theoretical perspectives to understand the multifaceted character of economic policy.

Selective industrial policy and ‘sustainable’ structural change. Discussing the political economy of sectoral priorities in the US

“…China is one of the most obvious examples, where specific key and emerging industries are selected by the government as strategic targets of five-year industrial plans (Petti, 2012;Petti et al, 2017;Yang and Stoltenberg, 2014;Lv and Spigarelli, 2016;Barbieri et al, 2019a;Di Tommaso et al, 2020a). Similar examples can also be found looking at public interventions in Vietnam (Ohno 2009;Masina, 2012;Di Tommaso and Angelino, 2015), Thailand (Natsuda and Thoburn 2013;Pollio and Rubini, 2015), South Korea (Cardinale, 2019;Tassinari et al, 2019) and many other newly industrialized countries. However, a selective approach has also characterized Western economies.…”

“…Under this perspective, the illustrative results of the analysis (i.e., the diagram in Figure 4) can also be intended as a modus operandi that can be used by governments to share their views on priorities, goals and targets both within and outside the public administration. Certainly, there are limitations, especially in those sectors at the technological frontier, because of the structural uncertainty characterizing new industries and innovations (Nelson and Winter, 1982;Foster, 1997;Cardinale, 2019). This uncertainty can imply even more difficulties for policymakers in justifying their selective choices.…”

Análise dos índices de inovação e os resultados recentes da balança comercial brasileira

“…Esse é um cenário de preocupação porque pode resultar em prejuízo, uma vez que essa diferença deve ser coberta pelas reservas financeiras do país. Fazendo uma breve revisão histórica constata-se que durante parte da década de 90 o Brasil foi um país que tinha fronteiras relativamente fechadas às transações de importação (CARDINALE, 2019). Foi a parir de então que começaram a se desenhar políticas com o objetivo de suspender parte das barreiras não-tarifárias e foi definido um calendário de eliminação e redução de certas alíquotas de importação (condicionada também a entrada em vigor do Plano Real.…”

Liberalization and the volatility of gas prices: Exploring their relation in times of abundance and scarcity

“…18.Former monopolists are operators that were dominating the national energy market as monopolists (or quasi monopolists) in the decades before the liberalizations of the 1990s and 2000s (Cardinale, 2019a; Cardinale, 2021; Cardinale & Belotti, 2022). They were vertically integrated, dominating national gas production or imports, transmission and distribution infrastructure, as well as sales to industrial and retail consumers.…”