Search

In the past twenty years the entire field of development has come under critical academic and activist scrutiny. In the field, the structural adjustment crisis of the early 1980s forced development theorists to reassess the wisdom of basing development programs solely on economic theory. This special issue of "Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society," is the result of efforts to create new sites from which to think about development issues, actual spaces/places across the globe where new development practices are unfolding: primary, under-graduate, and graduate classrooms, biology laboratories and professional ethics committees.

There has been a resuscitation of the view that the state can play an important role in the industrialization process. But, for states to be successful in fostering development, they need a considerable degree of internal cohesiveness, which is generally supplied by the presence of a robust, Weberian bureaucratic corps. This article argues that, while internal cohesiveness is indeed critical, bureaucratic rule following can produce results in the opposite direction, depending on the interagency relations that obtain within the state. The effect of interagency relations is demonstrated through an examination of India and Korea. Both have worked to foster industrialization, and both are endowed with relatively healthy bureaucracies. However, the Indian state was paralyzed and fragmented, while its Korean counterpart did secure the requisite internal coherence. Not only did the culture of rule following fail to generate a cohesive state in India, but it, in fact, worked against such an outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]