Developmental state

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Developmental state is a term used by International political economy scholars to refer to the phenomenon of state-led macroeconomic planning in East Asia in the late twentieth century. This is more pronounced in the Indian context. The term has subsequently been used to describe countries outside East Asia which satisfy the criteria of a developmental state. Botswana, for example, has warranted the label since the early 1970s. [1]

Contents

[edit] Characteristics of the Developmental state

[edit] See also

[edit] References

  1. ^ Leftwich, Adrian, “The Developmental State”, Working Paper No. 6, University of York,1994

[edit] Sources

  • Meredith Woo-Cumings. (1999). The Developmental State. Cornell University Press.
  • Peter Evans. (1995). Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformation. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Ch. 1.
  • Polidano C. (2001). Don’t Discard State Autonomy: Revisiting the East Asian Experience of Development. Political Studies. Vol. 49. No.3. 1: 513-527.
  • Ziya Onis. (1991). The Logic of the Developmental State. Comparative Politics. 24. no. 1. pp. 109-26.
  • Mark Thompson. (1996). Late industrialisers, late democratisers: developmental states in the Asia-Pacific. Third World Quarterly. 17(4): 625-647.
  • John Minns. (2001). Of miracles and models: the rise and decline of the developmental state in South Korea. Third World Quarterly. 22(6): 1025-1043.
  • Joseph Wong. (2004). The adaptive developmental state in East Asia. Journal of East Asian Studies. 4: 345-362.
  • Yun Tae Kim. (1999). Neoliberalism and the decline of the developmental state. Journal of Contemporary Asia. 29(4): 441-461.
  • Linda Weiss. (2000). Developmental States in Transition: adapting, dismantling, innovating, not 'normalising'. Pacific Review. 13(1): 21-55.
  • Robert Wade. (2003). What strategies are viable for developing countries today? The World Trade Organization and the shrinking of 'development space'. Review of International Political Economy. 10 (4). pp. 621-644.