Bras. Political Sci. Rev.2007;1(1):141-6.
State-directed development: Political power and industrialization in the global periphery
DOI: 10.1590/1981-3828200700010008
If life was hard for late-industrializers at the end of the nineteenth century, it be came even more so for late-late-industrializers in the twentieth century. This seems to be the overall message that Kohli highlights in his impressive survey and comparison of industrialization in four large developing countries. There are many profound challenges involved in this process. First, it is impossible to promote economic development in a vacuum, since every country is somehow connected with the international system, especially countries that were formerly colonies of the main industrial core. Second, the stages of economic interconnectedness force these countries to promote several processes simultaneously: state and institutional building, economic growth, and, if possible, “catching up” with development in an international scale. Third, the shadows of previous institutions are legacies that may facilitate or hinder development projects. Finally, as Gerschenkron argued in the 1960s, as technological changes increase in the international system, the role of the state in promoting development (or at least inducing) becomes even more central (), generating, in certain cases, perverse incentives for bureaucrats to act without any accountability to the public at large.
Being aware of these limitations, Kohli focuses his research on four major developing countries: Brazil, South Korea, Nigeria, and India. It is not by accident that these particular countries are chosen to study – large developing countries have some distinct characteristics that distinguish them from smaller ones, being the main one the possibility of developing more or less autonomous economies and generating an industrialization process based on national borders. Small states, as ) argues, are more exposed to risk in the international system and more likely to suffer from the effects of systemic changes. However, having the potential for industrialization does not translate directly into having the capacity to promote it, or even the conditions to carry it through.
[…]
58