Question

Discuss, comment, and organize your thoughts on the future of less-developed countries in the age of globalization. In pursuit of your arguments, discuss “development” as a historical concept. Is “development” a specific stage of 20th Century capitalism, or is it a natural phase that all nations will go through (provided they apply the “right” policies). Discuss the role of the developmental state in promoting development objectives in the next century? Has development state passed away? If not, what should the new policy tools and objectives of the state be under the age of globalized commodity and capital markets?

Answer 1

Two decades on from the recognition of good governance as one of the keys to development and poverty reduction, the developmental state is back again in the international policy debate. Policy thinking shows an increasing willingness to abandon value-laden prescriptions about governance and to adopt approaches rooted in comparative history and evidence-based analytical theory. The concept of the developmental state serves as a marker of this trend.

The focus is how states can become more capable and more supportive of development and human security. The emphasis has shifted from determining the ‘right’ role for the state – a vital question in the 1990s (World Bank, 1997) – to questions about commitment and capacity.

As the Commission for Africa acknowledged in its 2005 report, the way states function is in creasingly seen as one of the most important factors affecting development in the poorest countries. At the same time, collapsed and fragile states imperil international peace and security, posing enormous challenges to current models of development co-operation. These observations provide a practical incentive to revisit what is known about state-building and the development of state capacity.

What are developmental states and why do they matter?

we understand a developmental state to exist when the state possesses the vision, leadership and capacity to bring about a positive transformation of society within a condensed period of time.

It is not that all social transformations are actively promoted by developmental states. There are many instances of private-sector-led growth in which the state’s role has been quite limited. In addition, not all attempts at state-led transformations succeed.

The developmental orientation of a state is not a permanent condition but rather a dynamic feature with a limited time horizon. Germany and Japan, for example, had developmental states at critical junctures in their history which triggered considerable economic and social transformations, while also storing up unresolved issues for the future.

Today the challenges are different and those countries’ states would no longer be considered developmental. Nor need the developmental condition be even across the entire state: a state may be characterised by the co-existence of sectors or institutional areas that have a clear developmental orientation with areas where significant anti-developmental factors are in play.

A common factor among developmental states appears to be a committed leadership that is embedded in the ‘right’ context of demands. Developmental states are usually characterised by a leadership which is strongly committed to developmental goals, and which places national development ahead of personal enrichment and/or short-term political gains.

The ongoing debate on what institutions are the most needed at different stages of development has stimulated considerable research and thinking. The puzzles raised in the academic and policy literatures remain far from solved. For instance, some hard questions remain about what may constitute ‘realistic’ pathways from weak and ineffective states towards more developmental ones, taking into account a given country’s current situation. There also needs to be greater understanding about what the internal drivers of change and the role of external actors should be. This suggests that some fundamental re-thinking needs to be brought into development policy and practice.

This is essential if the current wave of governance and

state-focused work championed

by donors is to be realistic

and effective, rather than

dogmatic and overbearing.