Caldentey-ConceptEvolutionDevelopmental-2008
Caldentey-ConceptEvolutionDevelopmental-2008
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
International Journal of Political Economy
The developmental state is associated with the leading role played by the
government in promoting industrialization in Japan and East Asia in the
post-World War II era. Their respective governments pursued a series of
policies, including tariff protection, subsidies, and other types of controls
aimed at developing selected productive sectors of economic activity.
Fundamental to the design of the developmental state for these countries
was the creation of an alliance between politics and the economy, which
materialized in the establishment of a specialized bureaucratic apparatus
that had ample powers and coordinated the developmental efforts, at least
in their initial stages.
The developmental state and its associated policies are not unique to
Japan or East Asia. A similar type of model, albeit a more restrictive one,
was also followed in Latin America during the period that lasted from the
end of World War II to the beginning of the 1960s and, in some cases,
the 1970s. During this time, the state intervened in a number of areas and
indeed made use of fiscal, exchange rate, monetary, and sectoral policies
to promote the industrialization of Latin America.
Neither are developmental state policies a feature limited to the twen
tieth century. European countries used the same policies throughout the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and the United States during the
27
The term developmental state refers to a state that intervenes and guides
the direction and pace of economic development. The developmental state
is mainly associated with the type of economic policies followed by East
Asian governments in the second half of the twentieth century and, in
particular, with the post World War II Japanese economic model.1
Central to the developmental effort in the case of Japan was the cre
ation of the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MITI) in 1949. Initially it
coordinated the "Policy Concerning Industrial Rationalization," which
sought to counteract the deflationary regulations of the Supreme Com
mander of the Allied Powers. The MITI was also given the power to
negotiate the price and conditions for the import of technology through
the approval of the Foreign Capital Law.
In 1952, the MITI gained further preponderance as it took effective
control of the rights to import merchandise and of the foreign exchange
budget. The effective control of imports led the government to adopt a
system of import control for the protection of domestic industry. For its
part, the control of the foreign exchange budget allowed it to stimulate
and foster export growth.
The MITI also widened and cheapened the access to credit facilities
through the establishment of the Japan Development Bank. The Japan
Development Bank pursued a credit policy to develop key domestic in
U)
"U >
"U
o o c
co .co o
o CO °
§ .9 O)
•E|
c »_
CO w
0 tr
o CO ± CO E
"co
o o
-Q O =J
C CO
_C0 —
££ cn
o
» E £ c
"D co O) © t_ ■O >, »- "O
0 T C .ti o 0 _ 0 0
2 5
" 3
■£? Q.
£ c~
Q.
X kgii
2 « o 0 n 5 ® «
o 2
$ °" ■c £
o »
o otp*>
r c
o o
§ h co cq
> CO
c 5°O8
1 £82
Q. —' O)
EW
i_
m co 0 c x c .
•— CO o ~ .E ID to Q)
CD
co co
1- CO i= °0
c tl
.2 o s" S -
s8
CJ> £ ® 2
SnE^
o
(/) Q_ CM
< CO -O < .<2
1> oc
0) X
C CO Q O)
E0 O T~
© iS
— CO ^ c
— cn 0 o 75 ■& c-2
CO 0
~ o t- o
C '^3
o 13 0)"0 "O ° JZ
"isS
> 0 0 0
8_o2.
ll-.Ec
CO "D
S> 2« Ji g>
Eo
0 Q.
c E
11 © O)
E x O..E UJ O
OJLLI
c _ <DiS£ E|
-C 0 o o ^
I- 0
0 (!)
CO O 3
c E
.2 0
k_
qj •
.1.2
Q.
CO
i§
to CO
0 O
1
_Q N
m <0
£ "O
^ c
-l-» *— c O CO
o » 0 _
tl 3 E§
CQ Q- 5
CM
o
h
T
CD
CO CO
CO CO
CO
CO CO
D
CO
o
O) o
co ^
55
o CO
m T m >*
T
1—
O) CO
co
T 00
CO * i
to m
CO m CO t "D
CO © C
-C
CO
o
1—
CO
> 0
c w —
>* -O o 0 C0 E
— © 0
CO E
c N E
0 o CO
X ED O
c
"co
C "O
C JL cd 0 -f _ br c o œ 0
o b D 0 œ c c
£ C
0
S; -< <o a) </> ~ E 8 "g I c « C
^ Q. <0 -Q g ® ï^rg
iou«Oï
0
l_
c »- Q. © Q.
.2 tn <D >,
o
o
ill c o gj cm =
T3
SS M T. c IO)c«.O
S-§®?2
O
kl ft <0
U.®U '= ® ® S: m O Ê? 0
i—
O)
D
CÔ 0J C
o 9?
O
>
|SS®|c
S « -O 8) t: o C/S
5 05
© co ^ c © !§
C0 0
^ U) M JD tEtS»sS ©
' :£
n W-n ü
T3 Q) S > O 3
||-o£?
0
2S2 "O
0 CO 55 Q- O "O 0
Q-.Û (0 0 5 x 9 " o o _ O^
-p
«§8-s?
r 0 ™ (0 0 l. •£10
C © "C CO
0 S "o -Z d "o ^ a
o
eît Q
o v
O
s si cm "o c g ■
CO
c © m © © -4- ^
8«© CO
o <0 c
CO
3=
n »^.:= u> —=j
-2 E o "o -o "o
■-^3 ®, J p C0
B
1§1^
i8SS§".
> <U >- o -r
» s
u
CO cd CO _ -"O CD ,~
C0 Tj tcn^ûj o
■g TJ (0 o O ; - o c .£ < ïoœ j Hq
0S O 0 CL-— — LO
<° 5 O o 1
Ep5
c/) 0 - u. 0
"S*" E SS E o -£ g 0 — -a ? -5 <m o>
3 o. ra c "> o T
S-o
O
to
(5 Ç ® +- O]
; o
o
~o -O - £
2lo^
= CO
*- O
c
gll °!l Z,
" 1= ^5 <o !9 o >•
-5 a= c ® «o Q-—
0
sz
o
c
~a n
© C
Q.© q.®-S <q
©o> ^ ~ h~i ~ o c 03 -8 " O't- o ^ o
»
CD |aoi
CD 03 — "
0 OÏ CC is fc "o en en cr
0
■g 0
< o. <5Si g OT33C
D)"0
.©
<D|^
0 —
c 0 O
co O) Ü? > T O 05
*k—
s ® r > C O)
0 O) O T—
13 = ce 0 Q)
o ()£ Ö £?"c.g> "O o
c
co
<0 O) CD
§■>
X
ie ©gC L©
3 Q. (1)
CO U)
0 0 .c © cvj o - c,
sz
-C c.
0 ® -
£ o
e (O _
c ^ © 0 o ' lis
«s Sr ®
11^2-5-2^
s 11 |i is ® S"
0 i_
le © ©
u
\— P~ 0 oo
o
cd
7 h
■<fr
CVJ
h
0 0
D) O)
i_
i—
o> CD
O O oo
0 0 co
0 O
"O 0
0 0
c £2
30)
c j) or
E ®° X
CO
0 o
C 0
Q-" 2
T3 0
Q.
0
p (0 c 0 o
"O - 3= »- © $2 0 0 O
2 05 o CO o »
0 ar e g ° cô(/) 0"
0)g so"g
"O o =3 o
0 £ 0 CQT3 ^ 2
® a 0S§«
(D T3 S
O E J55 5 2> S
3 8 0 OCl "O
'0
ë|p .
0
0 ® 0)T3
"O 0
C 0 ~
S =>■£
0 -Q ij
£ £ P O — c £ co a 35
c H. CO ^ ,
fil» ** S-13
8,"°
0 £5
4_>
0 O Q- «n <0-5
to (O .2? o ö o 0 jj?
CO g O) co"OO
0 * C "O
Es r* c:
.2 •- cm o *r
—
0>_>* Q) 0J
— "I 05
"O O) CO ^ jo en Ü o> r <» - > 0 "O
o "S "o älälü
0 0)ü
O "O
o c ■o"g.2> o>.3 I E n, Q- 2 cd 0 o
>. CO
O) 05 rä®°2i g 2.
CDo5
-C _ "El
â°
^ S3?iS
o tr
cMEg< 5<°%%
P -rT *- TD
£0.0 c
orb ,ço o
0 o
® cd
^ c\î ^
c o
O Q.
o-^r ~ jÈ Et «0 e2 . tŒ 4- Sï
N Q
CD EE
— S w 0 _Z 0
8 «
O Q. D m
ii
Ort .2 . O c
© Ft
O 0 C GO =J E 0 0"§£
or > Cfl
d C »
■o co .= ■oE
0 © "O o c b -Q o o 0
-Q EH __
^ 0 0
, < U
C 0 « iS - <NS E
*> >> ><
c.
0 -O c CO
2 C
S3 «®S- 20
s|
0 O C — o
E "O .i=C\h=
0
cl 0
=3 c «
»r a
o
C0 £ 25.,0
. c/) S|- 0!@ 3= C
GO
X O ■n m Q
3= 0
C '4= "O E o «"S sîïE a§
c
c 5> <0
3 o iE
.<0 =5 E4= 0 O 3 yj 0 O J
uu £ .E I— -O CO o LU 0)T3 OOW 0
0
0
®S
o =3
o Eo "g
-
0 0 0
0 0 0 œ.Q
E E E -o w
o o o c: 0
0 E
2o £=
=»
"O
2o £=
>*
0 0 0 0 0 0 ï«
e-â 2-0
t£ o-p
n C CL .£ û_ .E 1 *c
û_
0 CO
■<3 00
CT> 1
1—
0
■*fr
CO r^
i—
y— .»—I
■—«»
0
E 2
0 O
=
0
sz
0 0
"O 'i_
o 0 0
Q) "3 co CM "O "d
C\j cm CO 0 0
0 CO
.C Q_
00 C»
LL LL
C
o
o
>.
c
0
C E
=3
O 0
O 0
c "S
"S a)
co
ïl° §É
&I
■o o
®® c ~
co o
2g«)5 « « c$
H- O
Q o o E O O)
O
"O
2 >»
"O 3
£C0 C
O o
CD
O 0
Û_ E
S g s
'g
< ^-73
co
Z ä 'Q
Ö .SP 8
X3 ü Û4
o -2 S
o c E
Dh <l> S
ë **
- Ü £3
<4-4 t—
>
° Ü C
X «5 ^ cd
ço
8 &sT
O J-i
c«
'd
o
M S
u •S 60 .
-Q 03 1
8 s S
05 u "
Table 2
Average Tariffs for Selected Regions and Countries, 1870-1913
countries had an average tariff rate that was roughly three times higher
(26.8 percent).
At this stage of their development, although tariffs were partly used
as a tool to develop the potential of the domestic industry, they served
mainly for raising government revenue to pay for war conflicts. These
were ultimately aimed at building and consolidating the different nation
states from the divisions that took place following independence.8
According to Centeno (1997), following independence, Latin Ameri
can countries experienced twenty-six armed conflicts by 1865 and sixteen
between 1865 and 1899.9 During the periods between independence and
1865 and between 1865 and 1899, military and financial expenditures
represented a significant share of government expenditure.10
Latin American countries, with a few exceptions, adopted more con
Table 3
Summary of Selected Public Policy Measures in Latin America in the
Second Half of the Nineteenth Century
Government guaranteed
Protection of major earnings
export sectors
Import tariff exemptions for
capital equipment
Quantity controls
Table 4
Customs as a Percentage of Government Revenue in Selected Latin
America Countries, 1865-99
Argentina 92 94 72 NA 54
Brazil 76 70 69 NA 54
Chile 23 34 25 65 70
Colombia 21 NA 62 NA NA
Ecuador 50 73 49 80 NA
Mexico NA 53 36 NA NA
Paraguay NA NA NA NA NA
Peru 74 75 85 NA 57
Uruguay NA NA NA 55 49
Venezuela 74 NA 75 76 67
The concept of the developmental state came under question with the
debt crisis in the 1980s in Latin America, the economic stagnation of the
1990s in Japan, and the 1997 financial crisis in East Asia. It is interesting
to note that in Latin America and East Asia, the debt crisis of the 1980s
and the financial crisis of 1997 registered the sharpest drops in output
experienced by both regions (see Figure 1).
In Latin America, government intervention began to be associated with
high rates of inflation, an impending macroeconomic disequilibria, and
inefficient and wasteful government policies. This negative view of gov
ernment and government intervention was at the heart of the Washington
Consensus viewpoints and policies that have dominated the landscape
Table 5
Selected Developmental State Policies in Chile in Key Areas During and
After the State-Led Industrialization Period
Oi-C\lC0,!^lOCDh^000^O-»-C\JC0-^-l0CDh^C0CT)OT-C\JC0'^-ir)CDrs^C00)O-t-C\lC0'*tlJ0CD
C5)0)0)0)0)C3)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)050)0)C3)0)0)0)0000000
"•-▼-"•-■«-i-i-T-!--i-!-i-T-i-i-i-T-i-i-i-T-T--T--^i-i-T-i-T-i--r-C\IC\IC\IC\IC\IC\IC\l
1 East Asia and the Pacific - • « » Latin America and the Caribbean
Figure 1. Latin America, the Caribbean, East Asia, and the Pacific: Cycl
of GDP per Capita Growth, 1970-2006, Hodrick-Prescott Method
T- CO CO (M r^
<
CD o cvi
z
CO co CO h
LO CD o co CO
CD CO LO CM CO CD
cvi ct> co LO CO cvi
CO o CO
in o CO CO
CVI T CO o o o
o co cvi LO d
CD OJ T- LO CO CO
CT) CO CO cvi h-'
Cvi CO LO CO
CO cvi co o CO CO
? I
CD CO o
LO LO CVI
I
T
<
CVI
z CO rr CO
cvi CO CO cvi CO
CO cvi cvi LO o o
cvi d co CO cvi cvi co
CD CO
CVI CT) <; CVI
CO CD CO
— 0) _ CD — <D "> _ O
0) S £ 6 CO O
O O -
sal iS £o
0 o
O «•-
O ™ o o }=.
v_
_Q O) o>
- 1_
CO
^ o iS -£0-2 c° c ° eg
I CD ■
E=
Q.
05 „
OC
CD
E"
Q.
03 ^
O Co
CD —
E=
Q.
<® -
O '
© -s
E®
Q.
05 „
o:
o£ o S 0s
o iS 5" .2
Q. O g> - 75 P Q_ CO Q.2
E rf" => £'**
^ S| 1o
<D ° Q- c
C vO D 05i ^ ° Q = C
Z>^ 0 C5 -2 3 (J}
o>
c CO
CO
0
c -C CO
c O) c
05
D c o
■O Q. 5 2
O o o o
RateofUnmployentadGDPperCaitGrowthinJap ndEastAi,195-206 c CO
Table 6 O X ~3 C/) ^
p ID CO O)
CO •*3" M CD
CO cm CO o
csi •*t CO
id CO O) CM CO to id CO
CO •^r ö in h-" id cd
CD CSJ 00 O) CO oo
CO CO Ö cvi ID c\i cd c\i ID
ID 00 00 ■sr o CD CO LD
CO CT> O CO ID cvi cvi ID
T I I
o 00 CvJ 00 CO CO
CO cd CO CO cvi CO cvi CD
CO CM cd CO o CO
CO CO a> CO CO CO CM CO
cm CO CO CM CO CO
CO O) CT> CO CO cvi
I 7 I
ID CD o> o 00 O) ID O) ID
cm CO cvi Ö cm CM cd
ID cm CD o ID "<fr
cm CO CO CO
CJ> o CO
00 cvi cvi od
-C -C
_ (D
« y
_ CD
« 2
% _ CD
0 2
% — 0
0 P
ö o o o e o
O O
2£
k_
O) O)
> k_ - v
*-T O 0
C A o .jS c ° £ c ° ■♦—» o iS
-Q
0 CO Q. ® -s o. ® -s Cl ® -S Q. 0 CL
E* E™ Ë® 00
lä
CO _ co ^ 0 co ^ 0 ^
E fjj
i_
è?is o qr
o^
g"iS O ^ o S o ^ §■ <s
0 Co
i_ 0s
8 ü
rs -O
0 — 0 -r 0 — 0 —
Q. CO Q.O §.« "5.2 Q. 0
o O
d 0 Q- O Q. 0
•w' OT
Eo
j£
Q- c
Q S
© °
Q Si
C sO
(5 -S 3^ (D -2
Q- c
E—
œ o
c Np
û. C
Q S C sO Q £
E
O o
O 3 Z) ^ CD 3
Û- C
C
|O
Q 5
3 ^ OÄ
û- C
11
CQ
TJ
03
0
CO C "D
O
c E
co "q. Û.
0 0
É Q. CO
C J*.
o>
CO c 0 S
C0 > CO
Notes
The fragmentation of the initial national divisions took place soon after independence.
Central America separated from Mexico by 1823, and the Central American Federa
tion only survived until 1839 and led to the creation of five new countries in 1839
(El Salvador, Costa Rica, Honduras, Nicaragua and Guatemala). By 1830, Colombia
comprising Venezuela, Colombia, Panam and Ecuador, broke up into three countries,
Venezuela, New Granada (present-day Colombia and Panama en Ecuador). The
Peru-Bolivia union (New Republics in 1824 and 1825 respectively) created in 1836,
collapsed in 1839. Mexico lost half its territory by 1847. The Viceroyalty of the River
Plate became three separate countries: Uruguay (independent in 1828) and Paraguay
and Argentina. (2005: 5).
9. Among the most important intraregional conflicts are the Triple Alliance
War, which involved Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay. The war lasted
for sixty-three months (by comparison, the American Civil War lasted forty-two
months) and had a significant and, on some countries, devastating cost. In Paraguay,
the proportion of casualties to the population was 15 percent to 20 percent. The War
of the Pacific (1879-84) also involved Chile, Peru, and Bolivia. Finally, Peru was
involved in an extraregional conflict with Spain known as the War of the Guano
( 1865-66). See also Thies (2005)
10. For the former period, the share of government revenue spent on the military
averaged 92 percent, 79 percent, 63 percent, 65 percent, 83 percent, 72 percent, and
70 percent in the cases of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Mexico, Paraguay,
Peru, and Venezuela, respectively. For the latter period, the share of government
revenue spent on the military averaged 65 percent, 66 percent, 64 percent, 46
percent, 66 percent, 60 percent, 32 percent, and 65 percent for Argentina, Brazil,
Chile, Ecuador, Mexico, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela, respectively.
11. In comparison to 1865-1900, from 1900 to the Great Depression years,
Latin American governments were faced with very few conflicts. Aside from the
American invasion of Cuba, Dominican Republic, and Nicaragua, and the Mexican
Revolution years, the period from 1865 to 1900 was marked by peace. According
to Bagchi, Chile followed a protectionist policy in the early half of the nineteenth
century to develop its domestic industry. The government further encouraged the
development of shipping by a "system of differential import duties on goods carried
on Chilean ships" (1982: 60). See Topik (1984) for the change in the composition
of government expenditures for Brazil following the War of the Triple Alliance.
12. Nonslave immigration increased from 47,890 during 1880 to 1889 to
118,170 during 1890 to 1899 settling at 66,651 at the turn of the century. See
Leff (1969: 494) and Baer (2008: 23). According to Topik (1984: 459), by 1889,
public expenditure to attract immigrants was more than twice that of public health,
hospitals, and sanitation improvements.
13. Balmaceda's viewpoints were similar to those of Hamilton. According to
Pregger-Roman, "In 1883, as Minister of Foreign Affairs and Colonization, Balmaceda
read a report commissioned by the Ministry of the interior that called for the protection
and stimulation of Chilean industry in the face of foreign competition.... In 1886,
he indicated that he favored both industrial development and protectionism" (1983:
52). From 1870 to 1890, Chile experienced a significant expansion in export and
economic growth in great part due to the incorporation of nitrate territories after the
War of the Pacific (Remmer 1977). See also Tapia-Videla (1977).
14. The expression "state-led industrialization" was coined by Ocampo (2004).
15. The connection between development and growth and development and
References
Crafts, N. 1999. "East Asian Growth Before and After the Crisis." IMF Staff
Papers 46, no.2: 139-66.
Galvarriato, A.G., and J.G. Williamson. 2008. "Was It Prices, Productivity or
Policy? The Timing and Pace of Latin American Industrialization After 1870."
NBER Working Paper 13990. National Bureau of Economic Research,
Cambridge, MA.
Horna, H. 1982. "Transportation, Modernization and Entrepreneurship in
Nineteenth Century Colombia." Journal of Latin American Studies 14, no.l:
33-53.
International Monetary Fund. 1998. "Korean Letter of Intent and Memorandum
of Economic Policies" (February 7). Available at www.imf.org/external/np/
loi/020798.htm.
Johnson, C. 1982. M IT I and the Japanese Miracle: The Growth of Industrial
Policy 1925-1975. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Johnson, E.A.J. 1937. Predecessors of Adam Smith: The Growth of British
Economic Thought. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Krugman, P. 1994. "The Myth of Asia's Miracle." Foreign Affairs 73, no. 6
(November/December): 62-78.
. 1997. "Whatever Happened to the Asian Miracle?" Fortune (August 18).
Available at http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/perspire.htm.
Kwon, H. 1972. "Economic Retardation in Nineteenth-Century Brazil." Economic
History Review 25, no. 3: 489-507.
. 2007. "Transforming the Developmental Welfare States in East Asia."
DESA Working Paper No.40. ST/ESA/2007/DWP/40. Department of
Economic and Social Affairs, New York.
Leff, N.H. 1969. "Long-Term Brazilian Economic Development." Journal of
Economic History 29, no. 3: 473-93.
Lewis, A.W. 1954. "Economic Development with Unlimited Supplies of Labour."
Manchester School 22 (May): 139-91.
Lie, J. 1998. Han Unbound: The Political Economy of South Korea. Stanford:
Stanford University Press.
Love, J.L. 1994. "Economic Ideas and Ideologies in Latin America since 1930."
In The Cambridge History of Latin America, vol. 6, no. 1, ed. L. Bethel.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Meier, G.M. 2005. Biography of a Subject. An Evolution of Development
Economics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mitchell, B.R. 1998a. International Historical Statistics. Europe 1750-1993.
London: MacMillan.
. 1998b. International Historical Statistics. The Americas. 1750-1993.
London: MacMillan.
Moreno-Brid, J.C., and J. Ros. In press. Mexico's Economic Development in
Historical Perspective.
Nelson, E.R. 1956. "A Theory of the Low-Level Equilibrium Trap in
Underdeveloped Economies." American Economic Review 46, no. 5: 894-908.
Nurske, R. 1953. Problems of Capital Formation in Underdeveloped Countries.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell..
Nye, J.V. 1991. "The Myth of Free-Trade Britain and Fortress France: Tariffs and
Trade in the Nineteenth Century." Journal of Economic History 51, no. 1: 23-46.