>The "developmental state" isn't a useful term in my view. I was
>simply trying to paraphrase Redmond posts on the subject in the
>above. There is a strain of thinking that attributes faster rises
>in GDP per capita and other conventional indices of economic
>development mainly to "developmental states" (which are seldom
>precisely defined -- most often, they are implicitly defined
>tautologically as states of nations that have experienced rapid
>economic development). Not my view. Other things being equal, we
>may see what difference state economic policy does or doesn't make,
>but other things are not equal.
Cet is never par, as Joan Robinson said, but still, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, and Malaysia all had very interventionist states that restricted or regulated imports and capital inflows, "repressed" finance, and exerted strong influence over the level and direction of R&D and investment, all with acceptable levels of corruption and long strings of success (as measured by growth rates). Everyone loves to dis Japan now, but its growth from 1950 to 1990 was incredible, and the other three have largely recovered from the 1997 crisis.
Doug