Poli Sci 3b03: Week 4
Monday, September 30, 2013
Different analysts have viewed the Developmental State in slightly different
Chalmers Johnson the originator of the concept emphasizes the
Small inexpensive elite bureaucracy staffed by the best managerial talent
Political system in which the bureaucracy as the key decision makers has
relative autonomy – the politicians reign and the bureaucrat’s rule.
A pilot agency that controls industrial development.
Perfection of market conforming methods of state intervention.
Phil Deans writing on China emphasizes more the ideational aspects of the
Public/private distinction blurred.
State ideology rooted in nationalism and paternalistic capitalism.
State’s authority rooted in developmental legitimacy or what can be termed
‘performance legitimacy’ as opposed to ‘process legitimacy’.
Autonomous economic technocratic elite committed to reform.
There have emerged different and in some ways competing explanations for
the rise of the developmental state and the general prosperity of the East
1. Neo-classical economic approach rooted in economics and the ‘liberal’
approach to IPE.
2. Statist approach, which argues that the state played a significant role in
promoting economic development through a planned industrial policy.
3. Japan-centered approach, which emphasizes Japan’s colonial, ties to
South Korea and Taiwan and also the extent to which the Japanese
economy became the engine of growth for the region.
4. US Hegemony approach which emphasizes the US role in the region.
5. Cultural explanation, which emphasizes the advantages to the region
conferred by Confucian culture.
Which of these explanations is best at helping us understand East Asia’s economic
success from the 1950s to the early 1980s? Wednesday, October 2, 2013
Talked about 5 explanations as to why east Asia did so well and the
developmental states emerged as strong economic entities
Looked at neoclassical economics explanation – the market was the key
factor, Statist explanation, Japan-centered explanation – the idea that Japan
was the engine of growth for the region, US hegemony, cultural explanation
Statist and US hegemony should be prioritized – they used US support, but
they used it properly and efficiently
How did these leaders use this money effectively?
o Sense of collective welfare
2. The threat of the Korean War
In the way in which political science and economics have evolved, we tend to
compartmentalize the two
Eat Asia had phenomenth growth, but the most destructive wars at the
second half of the 20 century
Are those two developments and sets of events linked? Yes – you can not
understand how East Asia emerged economically and prosperity without
understanding the wars
As political scientists we should try not to compartmentalize a lot, but look
across economics, geography, history etc.
In the 60s there was massive economic growth
o In the 90s starts to have trouble – especially Japan (2.1 GDP from
4.0GDP in the 80s)
APEC – Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (forum)
o Not member countries, but member economies
o Because Taiwan is part of APEC, but China says Taiwan is not a
country but a province of China therefore it is known as a “economy”
not a “country”
The question is why did GDP growth decline over the decades, but was
strong to begin with
o Facilitative Conditions which produce the developmental states
and the wonderful economic growth that was seen from the 50s to
1. Social Dislocation – the social fabric was torn apart which meant
we had weak societies rather than the strong societies (Migdal)
2. Threat – Internal/external threat – promotes nationalism and
social cohesion with the threat of war
3. Relatively independent skilled bureaucracy 4. Need for economic growth – ideology
5. Skilled leadership