State-Directed Development: Political Power and Industrialization in the Global Periphery

by Atul Kohli

Why have some developing country states been more successful at facilitating industrialization than others? An answer to this question is developed by focusing both on patterns of state construction and intervention aimed at promoting industrialization. Four countries are analyzed in detail - South Korea, Brazil, India, and Nigeria - over the twentieth century. The states in these countries varied from cohesive-capitalist (mainly in Korea), through fragmented-multiclass (mainly in India), to neo-patrimonial (mainly in Nigeria). It is argued that cohesive-capitalist states have been most effective at promoting industrialization and neo-patrimonial states the least. The performance of fragmented-multiclass states falls somewhere in the middle. After explaining in detail as to why this should be so, the study traces the origins of these different state types historically, emphasizing the role of different types of colonialisms in the process of state construction in the developing world.

Genres: Economics, Nonfiction, Political Science, Economic Development

479 pages, Kindle Edition

First published August 30, 2004

Reviews

[Nicole Mendoza · Rating 3 out of 5]

school book. was fine

[Zhenyao Li · Rating 5 out of 5]

很经典的一篇比较政治著作。核心问题是为什么有的国家更成功地促进工业化？又可以进一步分为：什么特性区分成功与不成功案例？（国家干预模式）以及 如何解释国家选择执行决策的不同能力？（国家能力） patterns of state authority包括国家政治如何组织以及国家能力如何运用，对私营经济决策所需的经济环境起着决定性作用。分为三种… （想改变很困难，制度是社会模式，只能随时间胶化，需要殖民主义，民族运动或者军队强制才能改变）相比于evens经典发展性国家的因果链（嵌入自主性，也就是政商更流畅的信息流动会导致成功的发展国家）kohli更喜欢考虑国家是怎样拥有权力并达到目标的。核心研究任务是调查分析掌握多少权利的国家，然后展示国家精英对权力的有目的的运用与经济结果之间的因果关系。 一方面政治制度可以学习，一方面相应的经济政策也有参考价值。
韩国高度集权，中央政权有立法行政的绝对权力来实现国家目标，其次具有广泛渗透且纪律严明的文职官僚。官僚和商人形成了非常紧密的关系网。
巴西缺乏民族认同，存在政治分散化和多阶级政治问题，难以动员人民，严重依赖外国。地方权力很大，战前位总督政治，政治上层虽有发展目的但难以将政策下沉。有从下层民众付成本到高额借贷导致后代付成本的趋势。
印度有明确的多阶级特色，国大党相比较经济发展更看重政治合法性。与其他国家左派右派掌权不同，国大党向populism发展，国家能力和国家意愿存在鸿沟。

[Nurlan Mustafayev · Rating 4 out of 5]

While the discussion of South Korea and Brazil was very informative, the same cannot be said about the analysis of India and Nigeria. In addition, the discussion of 'neoapatrimonial' states was not that great and did not include many insights from e.g. D. North's et all works in the field. Also, instead of proposing new terminology - cohesive-capitalist, multi-class societies - it would have been clearer if the author followed the existing termnology in current scholarship. However, overall, it is a great book about what role states can play in industrilizing their countries.

[Sydnie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Focused on India section which provided great background for dissertation writing.

[Saleh Banihani · Rating 5 out of 5]

Kohli makes a really interesting argument for statism, and how a nations colonial past could heavily determine their future.

[Nidya · Rating 4 out of 5]

It is a very well organized comparative book. Kohli categorizes state based on historical patterns of state authority in developing world; neopatrimonial states, cohesive-capitalist states and fragmented-multiclass states.
The author manage to prove his argument, and if you can always apply it to your own country. My country for instance is somewhat like fragmented-multiclass state. No wonder it is hard to manage!

[Brian · Rating 2 out of 5]

Compares South Korea, Brazil, India and Nigeria and argues that there degree of success in industrializing has been determined primarily by the capacities of their governments. Very well researched and well argued, but his focus on development defined very narrowly as economic growth leaves me not really caring all that much. Probably most useful as background reading if you are interested in the industrialization process of any of these countries.

[Guy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Not a light read, but a classic.

[Derick · Rating 1 out of 5]

Disgusting methodology, horrible ideas, and incredibly poorly organized and written