Search

How and why do developmental state institutions persist? We address this conceptual question through an empirical puzzle: even though Pakistan and Turkey, like South Korea and Taiwan, constructed postwar developmental state institutions, the Pakistani and Turkish economies have been unable to upgrade to higher value-added production following the Korean and Taiwanese experience. If, as many scholars argue, the creation of developmental state institutions is necessary and sufficient for high growth outcomes, how can we understand the divergence between these two sets of cases? We argue that that the persistence of developmental state institutions is contingent on the absence of articulated opposition from agrarian actors and provincial capitalists against regimes of industrial promotion. While Korea and Taiwan suppressed or co-opted potential challengers from the countryside, such actors in Pakistan and Turkey effectively challenged the developmental state in the mid-1970s. We suggest that the politics of developmental state persistence are analytically distinct from the origins of developmental states, thus enabling a more dynamic understanding of the relationship between the politics of developmental state institutions and late industrialization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How might we characterize and explain industrial variation within developing economies? The strategies of manufacturers in India and Pakistan exhibit this variation within countries, sub-national units, and sectors. I argue that, far from being driven by the incentives of state institutions, the practices of industrial firms are driven by the social orientation of industrialists. I demonstrate the presence of variation and explain the dichotomy primarily through empirical research on firms in the pharmaceutical industry, as a least likely case for variation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Examines the link between industrial convergence and the persistence of the North-South income divide between the developing and developed countries. Degree of industrialization of the Global South; Mismatch between industrial convergence and income convergence; Reduction of income inequality.

Comments on issues on the impact of industrialization on poor countries. Reference to the article "Industrial Convergence, Globalization, and the Persistence of the North-South Divide," published in 2003 issue of the journal "Studies in Comparative International Development"; Claim on the association of industrial convergence with convergence in incomes between First and Third world countries; Examination whether industrialization advances poor countries economically; Absence of credible evidence that industrialization has been an ineffectual means of economic advancement in the Third World.