State-led development. Economic growth and social advancement in developing countries

A short comparative analysis


Academic Paper, 2017

15 Pages, Grade: 70


Excerpt


Introduction

Conceptual Clarification: State-led development, Market-failure, Neoliberalism, Development, Developmental state

Section One: Main Arguments

Section two: Drawbacks of State-Led Development

Conclusion

References

Introduction

The responsibility of the state in fostering economic growth and social advancement in developing countries has been a subject of debate among international development experts and policy analysts for over half of the century. The end of World War II, saw the embrace of a state-led model of development by newly independent states in Africa and Asia and the wider global community, in order to bring about industrialisation and entrepreneurship through deliberate effort and state (Menocal 2006). The period of 1950 and 1960 that followed world war two evidenced a degree of state intervention in economies all over the world in a manner unknown prior to the time. In developed nations, intervention took the form of magnanimous welfare laws, nationalisation of private industries and lots of public programs. In the developing world, it took the form of legislation to promote upcoming industries and to produce public ones where Market had failed to do so. (Rapley 2007). However, by the late 1970s, the state-led development model adopted by countries in Africa, Eastern Europe and Latin America had failed. State intervention in these economies were often extravagant consequently, creating ‘bloated’ states that were unable to deliver developmental goals in an efficient manner. The ineffective state enterprises and parastatals were examples to support this fact. What followed was a series of national economic crises (Menocal 2006).It will be noted here that the model of state-led development is a different approach from one posited by neo-liberalist which gives primacy to market to promote adequate distribution of society’s resources and intervention of the state only when market is unable to bring about the desired result. (Arrow 1974). The State-led development theory rather expands the role of the state to include nationalising corporations , providing subsidies and incentives for private sectors, licensing schemes to reduce competition and guarantee profit, investment in infrastructure as well as central planning, exchange rate overvaluation and rationing etc. ( Rapley 2007).

However, this has come under lots of criticism, on the note that state intervention and regulation have allowed for corruption as marketing boards and public firms have become tools to usurp resources for personal purpose. (Rapley 2007) Consequently creating inequality that have benefitted cities but harmed the rural areas (Lipton 1977). This essay therefore, carries out a comparative analysis of state intervention in certain economies and examine factors that culminated in success of these intervention as well as factors that have amounted to the failure of State –led Intervention using a case selection of Nigeria, Korea and Japan respectively. For this essay, State-led Development and State Intervention would be used interchangeably. The Essay will develop as follows: Section one looks at the Clarification of Concepts; Section two looks at the success of State-led development in Korea and Japan. Section three looks at the failure of State-led development in Nigeria. Finally, the last section looks at the summary as well as recommendations for State-led development.

Conceptual Clarification: State-led development, Market-failure, Neoliberalism, Development, Developmental state.

In order to address the question above, there is need for an understanding of the concepts that will be used throughout this essay. Firstly, state led development involves the use of the state’s administrative resources as an engine of growth and development and as a central planning and redistribution tool. (Martinussen 1997). The arguments in favour of this has been centred on the basic economic structures of underdeveloped societies, their undeveloped markets and the lack of an adequate entrepreneurial. Again, this is why state in developing nations of Asia, Africa and Latin America became important economic actors, involved in various system of state intervention. In some developing countries, the state‘s role has come to be associated with both quick industrial evolution and fostered equity. In other cases, by contrast, governments and bureaucrats have looted the economic wealth of their own societies, impeding economic progress and ensuring the transfer of this wealth to incompetent and ineffective leaders. In yet, other cases, state –led development has yielded mixed results; the states have helped in ameliorating certain societal problems, while compounding others and recreating new ones (Kohli 2004).

Secondly, the concept of Market failure, which may be defined as the inability of non-centralised market productive agents and actors to produce outputs to fill the conditions for the provision of public goods and exclusive property right (Chang &Rowthorn 1995). In other words, it is the inability of the market mechanisms of fostering and economic freedom and managing the economy. For example, the failure of price, private actors; multinationals and cooperate firms to bring about the basic necessities of development or to provide public goods such as education, infrastructure to enable people meet their needs.

This highlights the pitfall of the neo-liberal thesis advanced by neo-classical economist, that open competition and market structures in all countries and under all circumstances , would bring about a more effective administration of production factors and a more effective circulation of commodities, than a regulated economy with bureaucratic control and central planning.(Martinussen 1997). Equally important is, the term Development, which is complex and encapsulates varied definitions across different perspectives, in it is simplest form it is the ability of nations, peoples, and multinational actors to commence or manage change, to improve their position or standard of living, and to operate actively in the global economic system. (Donaldson et al 1995).

Equally central is the concept of developmental state, which has been defined as the state that is actively involved in the economic development in terms of overall planning to achieve economic development and to efficiently deploy resources to ensure that the needs of its population is fully met (Johnson 1999).

Section One: Main Arguments

State and Private Sector Concerted Effort.

An important factor that highlights the reason why of state –led intervention has been successful is the established relationship between state and private elements. The state’s endearing devotion to sustainable growth combined with the gain-making activities of private capitalist which is growth oriented. These capitalist exercise their commitment for progress by expanding trade and industry with a well-formulated, accurate and effectively carried out state intervention (Kohli, 2004). These interventions by state have been justified by the need to ensure equilibrium between economic sectors; distributing of growth and increase chances for better income geographically and in social; or the need to impede external control or economic monopoly (Martinussen 1997).

The abilities of indigenous firms are not deterministic, rather they can be shaped by circumstances, therefore rather than exchanging itself for private actors the state tries to help the growth of new producing class or motivate existing groups to take on more daring kinds of production. A range of procedures and strategy could be used. Setting impositions in form of tax and levies is one way to guard emerging sectors from foreign competition. Making available subsidies and incentives is another. Bargaining on behalf of indigenous entrepreneurs with multinational capital or just alerting that a certain sector has enormous potentials is another (Evans 1995).

For instance, Korea was able to develop on a range of firms with industrial capacities promoted by prior protection by state. Early government intervention began with ‘green houses’ which created room for indigenous capitalist to grow guarded from global competition. For instance, Personal computers PCs, the focus of protection and government intervention in the early 1980s, became a cornerstone of the industry in the late 1908s .At the end of 1980. Its industry had amounted huge success, local entrepreneurs could affirm success in all sectors.

The production of information technology had become the foundation of Korea’s all-inclusive strategy. The emphasis on semiconductors was heralded by the state’s construction of a pilot wafer fabrication facility in the 1970s and supported by programs like the 4-Megabit DRAM project in the 1980s.More crucial in moulding the industry was the overall protection that created the business conglomerate (Chaebol) in the first instance, the set up chaebol engaged in fierce competition with the world’s leading firms in memory chips and became a powerhouse in the world personal market. These basic sectors of information technology which Korea amassed lots of success are ones which the state endeavoured to foster.

In ten years, Korean’s manufacture of computer rose from zero to 2billion dollars. Initially, attempting to engage in the technologically challenging sector of wafer fabrication proved difficult for both foreign assemblies and the indigenous business firms. State intervention therefore ensured a drift to a sector that relies on acquired production experience and by extension on the financial capability to sustain investment in the new capacity in order to gain competitive advantage (Evans 1995).

However, these involvement by government in form of operational control over private enterprises have been criticised by scholars such as Martinussen (1997) who considered state intervention as excessively exorbitant solutions to short term problems. In order words, government interference which have directly impacted on the operation of private enterprise including their investments priorities, have more or less shown to be high-priced, unproductive and even detrimental in the sense that they have brought unintended consequences. The usual long-term impact probably has been the unwanted side effects, where regulation has had the desired outcome, but followed thereafter by undesired unwanted consequences of a sort. Protection of emerging industries for instance may be quite positive in the short term, while in the long term, the following consequence has in many cases been unplanned effects in the form of monopolistic industries manufacturing at cost weigh beyond world prices. Evans (1995) however, rejects the idea of unintended consequences of government intervention, to him, even though private sectors are encouraged to take on promising sectors, global operations and factors will continually pose challenges to these indigenous firms.

State-led Development vs Professionalised Bureaucracy.

A defining responsibility of the state is as the main agent of development scheme in any society. Political resolution can be made with respect to development plans as incorporated in federal and state plans; development departments can be created recruiting trained personnel with development skills; finance and other resources can be acquired and distributed; administrative laws and guidance may be enacted on how the development programme is to be executed and so on. States therefore require bureaucracies as this produces a structure of foreseeable social action within which other bureaucracies can function. These bureaucratic organisations are featured to possess certain hierarchy, continuity, impersonality and expertise and ideally separate and less influenced by the ruling body which employs them. (Allen &Allan 2000).

Development therefore occurs in a political circumstance in which such bureaucracies play a significant role in various ways by providing relevant information, proposing possible outcomes of different policy options, exercising power relations by those at the higher level and lower level of government and demanding appropriate behaviours. For example, certain specifications have to be fulfilled before grants and loans can be released and implemented by local bureaucrats (Allan & Allen 195). The fact that State bureaucracy possess the capacity to provide a major political input to into the development process through various roles helps to explain why several states have been able to undertake development successfully while others in most cases failed.

In east Africa for example, the developmental state’s bureaucracy, possess certain vital features, part of which include that profit and investment rely solely on decisions made by the state. There is substantial debate on development; the condition for industrialisation and how to foster it. Again this is where, east Africa differs from other countries in the world. The bureaucracy is a strong social groups of administrators with fixed and well-defined interests. (Woo-cummings 1999 ). In Japan, the small elite bureaucracy is hired from the top ranks of the best school, appointment is based on merit. The bureaucracy has power of administrative safeguard and is not limited in any way by other arms of government. Their responsibility include drafting industrial policy and the procedures to implement it and also ensure competitions are enormously regulated in selected sectors (ibid).

Peter Evans (1995) in his book ‘Embedded Economy’ highlights the interconnectedness of isolated Weberian bureaucratic structure and the existing environment to describe developmental state in East Asia. For example, In Japan, the process of selection of bureaucrats and the extended lasting reward increases firm obligation and a culture of corporate consistency. As such, the character of bureaucrats tend towards commitment to collective pursuits rather than individual interests presented by market, allowing the state to be less influenced by pressures from society. More importantly, the administrative web is intertwined into the Japanese society as industrial policy relies on the alliance between ministries and industrialist. The relationship between Bureaucracy and private corporations are therefore strengthened by the Ministry of international trade and industry who occupy strong places in corporations, industry associations and other organisations. This interconnection sufficiently help to increase state capacity rather than decline. This feature of the Japanese Bureaucracy highlights why several cases of state intervention have failed owing to a lack of a competent, responsive and meritocratic civil service. Whose structure is highly personalistic and not free from clientistic politics (Menocal 2006).

The state’s significance is embedded in a solid set of social relationship that binds the state and society to a particular social group, making room for sustained process to carry out transformative policies and objectives. For example, the informal ties between members of the same class in elite institutions from which officials are employed further intensifies the well-organised nature of bureaucracy. This relationship between state and society has been analysed by (Mitchel 1991) who noted that state and society are intertwined and that the only distinction that exist comes in form of network of institutionalised processes by which law and order is sustained and therefore ensures autonomy as well as coherence of state. However, other scholars have highlighted the non-fixed and inconsistent nature of state autonomy as circumstances may induce the creation of policies and strategy by bureaucrats who otherwise might not organise their own abilities for independent action. Perhaps accidentally in other cases as in the US, give a specific lobbying group leverage to exert influence over a certain policy. (Evans et al 1985). This therefore reviews that state’s autonomy may be undermined in its relationship with private sector. Nonetheless, the idea that development can thrive successfully with government intervention creates a lesser appeal to market-oriented development.

Section two: Drawbacks of State-Led Development

State Intervention vs Corruption.

A significant feature of all modern states is a characteristic of all modern states is a public sector that is well –designed and distinguished both by standard and practice from personal interest and gain. However, for a number of reasons, this variation between the public and the private sphere was never well-established in a number of developing countries, especially African states. Consequently, a number of deformed states emerged with weak structures that often are not recognised, low-quality bureaucracies and self-centred leaders that are not conditioned by norms and institutions. These states could be referred to as ‘neopatrimonialism’ as they only possess the appearance of a modern state, rational legal states. Therefore State-led development under the patronage of these neopatrimonal states regardless of the form of political regime has often been futile, mainly because both public goals and capabilities to achieve certain objectives in these scenario have often been limited by private and small group interests. (Kholi 2004). The Nigerian state typically exemplifies this.

On attaining independence, it was obvious that the colonial state inherited from the British was not much of a state. The new leaders, personalistic and concerned with matters that are of less national value compounded these defects by further creating ethnic disparity and by pursuing communal affairs, accentuated these defects by further polarizing ethnic conflicts and by pursuing social network gains at the cost of economic development. Marketing boards were only depended on for revenue, and a prevalent use of these revenue to create corrupt networks accumulate and accumulate private wealth.

These propensities quickly swept across the civil service and major government parastatal undermining the need for professionalism in service. Leaving foreign corporations to drive much of the progress experienced at independence. Thus, then leaders thus turned to foreign economist to formulate a set of open policies that provided the basic structure for the economy. Thus foreign multinational corporations continued to manage Nigeria’s modern manufacturing. The strategy adopted by these firms was to increase production locally and owing to high cost of employing foreign workforce for management sought for further protection from the government. This was not part of a well-designed industrialization strategy by the government as the federal government was too inefficient to come up with such strategy and even its policies to attract foreign investment were not productive.

Monetary policies by the government such as fiscal incentives was not any inducement for firms, instead the main spur for firms was the Nigerian market. Investment therefore was in already functioning industries as there was little industrial diversification.

This portrayed the frailty of the local economy and the inability of the government to set conditions for foreign investors resulting to a lasting failure of industrialisation. Given that, state sector investment was not in functional sectors, but rather in unproductive expenditures such as luxury hotels, airlines etc. Indigenous effort failed even as foreign investors promoted economic growth. Government’s own venture into certain industries was an abysmal failure The government own diagnosis of the problem concluded that root cause included nepotism and favouritism, ethnic cleavages, ministerial disruptions, deplorable management and administration . (Kohli 2004)

In fact, the public sector made no contribution to raising local technical capacity in any industry. The shortfall of the Nigerian state to provide the structure for the development of national economic system had an indelible effect on entrepreneurship. Detailed evidence of case studies of public attempt to promote indigenous industry by making loans available, creating industrial estates and providing lots of incentives failed mainly because of lack of entrepreneurship. This lack of entrepreneurship were not much as a result of economic frailty, since the economic structure was open and ensured competition. Rather what was more involved were factors relating to political, ideological and bureaucratic sphere that thus required change. Technological and managerial capabilities capacities at a low ebb and paved more impediment to further progress that the capacity rather than will to seize economic opportunities was missing (Ibid 2004)

The Nigerian case asserts the observation by (Chang and Rowthorn 1995) who noted that state intervention may not better social welfare but rather deteriorate things because there are certain operational cost involved in the process such as information cost, rent-seeking waste or because the state institutions maybe dominated by elites, administrators or interest groups whose interest is not reflective of the society in general. More so, is the idea that politics inevitably corrupts the economy, therefore should be kept aside by minimising the degree to which state intervenes in the economy. Stigler (1975) is representative of this view. However, several authors believe that, the failure of the state to bring about development is based on the over important role bequeathed to the state as the only driver of economic development and industrialisation (Porter 1990).More so, different states have their different adherence to general interest and what separates the public from private sphere varies in different setting; drawing conclusions without taking into considerations these facts is best misinforming (Chang and Rowthorn 1995). Nonetheless, the failure of these states to provide the necessary pace for development reinforces the primacy of market mechanisms in ensuring development and perhaps it is this which lies behind the ideology of the role of the state to being not more than the safeguarding of territorial sovereignty. All of these weaken state capacities which is necessary for economic and social t transformation and a production of more efficient society.

State‘s Role vs Capability.

Various state structures present different capabilities for states to carry out decisions. Structures determines the scope of government capability. Results therefore rely on whether the roles fit into these capacities and how well they are implemented (Mazzacuto 2013). State role ranges from activities that requires government intervention to activities in which the state become active in controlling markets or reallocating assets. There are categories to look at state function in addressing market failure. First is that, In addressing market failure, the state's minimal role is to make available essential public goods such as Security, law and order, property rights, managing the macro economy, public health care. At other level, the functions of the state are the control of economic consequences, such as pollution, control of monopolies and bridling flawed information, for example by consumer protection. More active function of the state relate to co-ordinating private operations, such as fostering market activity through functional industrial and financial policy. (World Bank 1996)

This idea clearly suggest that only states with strong capacities can assume more-activist functions. In this case, state activity and how it carries out these activities is very paramount. The character of a country's institutions, its institutional capacities has a vital effect on economic and social development. (Ibid 1996). Unfortunately, so many societies including the developing world have ventured to save the economy without strong capabilities and this has posed difficulties for the development they are assumed to be championing. For example, with independence in the 1950s and 1960s, increasingly many African states assumed more developmental roles. The basis for this was the realisation that the lack of private capital, entrepreneurs as well as technology posed a hurdle to economic industrialization. In Nigeria, these intervention in the economy was enormous. The state not only controlled the dominant heights of the economy including sectors like oil and gas, mining, telecommunication, power; it also govern other organisations like Newspaper firms. However, such economic nationalism not far too long failed as most sectors, agencies ,firms, agencies, sectors and the economy began to decline and by the late 1980s had collapsed under the then military regime. The reason was not far-fetched, the economy had crumbled mainly because of the ineffectiveness of the state as a driver of economic industrialisation and the non-success of the Nigerian state to equal its role with its capability. (Igbinadolor 2010). This overextended role of the Nigerian state was one bane of the so-called national capitalism the state assumed to be driving and the failure of the state intervention in this process.

Equally central when considering state capacity is to look at the enormous role state can play in driving economic change, by providing a logical vision of the future at a foremost stage of transformation, the state can pilot private sector actors into a joint effort and ensure that they are not spending a lot of resources in sourcing and gathering information, political negotiation and so on. The fact that the state coordinating a vital economic change rather than merely orchestrating a step to a greater equity highlights the existence of a crucial entrepreneurial element in the making. This argument for state entrepreneurship is mainly based on its key position that the state by its characteristics is the only agent that alleviate the concerns of the whole society (Chang & Rowthorn 1995). However, in some societies, rather than aid private sectors, resources are appropriated and siphoned to places other than areas of productive investments. Failed economic policies, inability to provide support for local capitalist, low quality but active labour and political upheavals, all fortify the weakness of the private sector (Kohli 2004). The Nigerian state is a case in point, the Nigerian state undermines entrepreneurship; it is unable to organise venture capital and indeed the operation of the state abhors effectiveness of the state in all aspect. The state fosters ineffectiveness, incompetence and perversion. It is therefore not surprising that virtually all state owned industries and parastatal created after independence have all shut down or sold off in the privatisation exercise organised by the federal government. (Ibid 2010). The Nigerian mining corporation established to tap the vast and largely unexploited firm mineral resources of the country, create capital through export and grow new and relevant mining technologies is today nothing more than a ‘ramshackle’. This agency created with the best purpose and intentions by trained professionals has been unable to deliver. Rather than involving in economic activity of mining and selling of gold, tin, coal, and other mineral resources that define the Nigerian topography, the Nigerian mining corporation has only been able to come up with low quality (red burnt) bricks. And rather than actualising the involvement of the state in this sector, and attract the operations and engagement of private sector and considerable mining concerns in the tapping of these solid minerals, the state has grievously placed huge regulations such as over taxation, multiple taxation and market unfriendly policies on this little mining concerns that tried to engage in this sector out of business.

The obvious lack of ability of the state to pursue and maintain the stride towards economic growth and development in Nigeria as well as in Africa has been thoroughly examined by neo-liberal and leftist scholars. Marx and Angel (1998) who noted that the state is nothing more than a committee for the control of the general operations of the capitalist. While other authors noted the low-utilisation of capacities as well as overemployment in public industrial operations are reasons behind the several losses in government enterprise. (Martinussen 1997). Others scholars highlighted the ideological vacuum of state led development as being the cause of state failure in developing countries Claude Ake (1996) noted that the idea of development was only adopted as a means of sustaining political dominance; it earn little attention and rarely had any goal as a structure for economic transformation. Mazzacuto (2013) however, rejects the lack of ideology as being the cause of failure. He believed the role of the state should expand more than just making available the relevant basics. And that is why he further explained that, it is the lack of willingness and ability of state’s economic agent to take a leading role in taking risk; on real uncertainty; attempts at innovation that has hampered economic progress of these developing nations. Nonetheless, in the assessment of government intervention from this point of view, the state and its characteristics, institution and capacity, without no doubt are particularly necessary in the course of development and therefore must be enhanced.

The argument for and against State intervention continues to dominate development academic literature. State intervention although with somewhat different emphases in the three cases considered reveal that the state, its politics and characteristics have a huge impact to play on the outcome of development process. Hence, it was revealed that contrary to the thesis advanced by neo-classical economist that regulated economies with central planning will be less productive, the studies above show that societies with well-developed and professionalised bureaucracies; close connection with the private sectors have been successful in driving and delivering industrialisation chiefly a result of their structures as well as policies adopted. State intervention policing roles that include; erecting tariff to protect infant industry, creating subsidies and incentives for firms, negotiating with transnational capital, joint capital venture with private sectors etc. It has been argued therefore, that the state is necessary to play strategic role in achieving national goals.

On the other hand, in developing societies, it has been observed that the neo-patrimonial politics of the state which may not be reflective of the interest of the people, the absence of a strong state capacity and the over-extended state capacity explains the disparity in policies implemented and the subsequent economic performance with other developed societies. State intervention in this case have been left to private sectors and foreign corporations who either have low capacities and unable to take on more challenging role or bedevilled with challenges from the global economic system. Initiating the viewpoint that the state should assume no other role outside the safeguarding of property rights, territory etc.

Conclusion

It is not the objective of this essay to propose either market-oriented approach or state-led development approach as alternatives frameworks for achieving development. However, it must be noted here that the role of the state in development cannot be overemphasised. The state regardless of whatever capacity has a responsibility to aid and achieve development outcome. Therefore, in order to be an active agent of development; states as well as its institutions, politics and characteristics needs to be modified in a way that enhances development. More so, states need to set priorities to ensure that roles adopted match with their institutional capabilities. Thirdly, the states need to develop a level of collaboration and dialogue with the private sector in the adaptation of policies. Lastly, the state and its apparatus such as the civil service need to be more guided by dogmatic principles in their recruitment and activities in order to exercise autonomy from societal influence.

References.

Ake, C. (1996 ). Democracy and Development in Africa. Washington D.C: The Brookings Institution. Pp.1-175.

Allen, T. and Thomas, A. (eds) (2000). Poverty and Development into the 21st Century. New York: Oxford University Press. Pp.1-531.

Chang, H. and Rowthorn, R. (1995). The Role of the State in Economic Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp.1-295.

Charlotte, N.G (2008). The Developmental State and Economic Development. Available online: http://www.e-ir.info/2008/06/15/the-developmental-state-and-economic-development/. (Accessed 27 December 2016).

Evans, P., Rueschemer, D. and Skocpol, T. (1985). Bringing the State Back in. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. PP.1-345.

Evans, P.B., (1995). Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformation. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Pp.1-286.

Igbinadolor, N. (2010). The Vampire State: Government Intervention a Barrier to Economic Progress. Available online: http://saharareporters.com/2010/09/23/vampire-state-government-intervention-barrier-economic-progress. (Accessed 26 December 2016).

Johnson, C. The Developmental State: Odyssey of a Concept. In Woo-cumings (1999).The Developmental State. Ithaca: Cornell University press.pp.1-235.

Kohli, A. (2004). State –Directed Development; Political Power and Industrialisation in the Global Periphery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pp.1-466.

MacDonald, S.B. Hughes, J. and Crum, D. (1995). New Tigers and Old Elephant; The Development Game in the 1980s and Beyond. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers. Pp1-256.

Marx, K. and Angel, F. (1998). The Communist Manifesto. London: The Merlin press.

Martinussen, J. (1997). Society, State and Market: A Guide to Completing Theories of Development. 2nd edn. Halifax: Fernwood publication. London: Zed books ltd. Pp.1-357.

Mazzacuto, M (2013). The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs Private Sector Myths. London: Anthem press.pp.1-437

Menocal, R. and Fritz, V. (2006). (Re) building Developmental States: From Theory to Practice. Working Paper.274. London: Overseas Development Institute.pp.1-32.

Mitchell, T (1991). The Limits of the State: Beyond Statist Approaches and their Critics. American Political Science Review. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.pp.77-96.

Porter, M. (1990). The Competitive Advantage of Nations. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Pp.1-815.

Rapley, J (2007). Understanding Development: Theory and Practice in the Third World, 3rd edition. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Pp.1-205.

Stigler, G. (1975). The Citizen and the State. Chicago: University of Chicago press. Pp.1-224.

Woo-cummings, M. (1999). The Developmental State. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. PP.1-235

World Bank (1996). The State in a Changing World. New York: Oxford University Press. Pp. 1-28.

[...]

Excerpt out of 15 pages

Details

Title
State-led development. Economic growth and social advancement in developing countries
Subtitle
A short comparative analysis
Course
Development Perspectives
Grade
70
Author
Year
2017
Pages
15
Catalog Number
V591223
ISBN (eBook)
9783346216212
ISBN (Book)
9783346216229
Language
English
Keywords
economic, state-led
Quote paper
Victoria Essiet (Author), 2017, State-led development. Economic growth and social advancement in developing countries, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/591223

Comments

  • No comments yet.
Look inside the ebook
Title: State-led development. Economic growth and social advancement in developing countries



Upload papers

Your term paper / thesis:

- Publication as eBook and book
- High royalties for the sales
- Completely free - with ISBN
- It only takes five minutes
- Every paper finds readers

Publish now - it's free