Rapid East Asian economic growth was commonly credited to the existence of strong, autonomous developmental states. Subsequently a new ‘institutionalist’ school of thought emerged which argued that an effective state must be connected to civil society, not autonomous from it, and which reinterpreted East Asian development in these terms. This paper is a critical reappraisal of the institutionalist school. The evidence of state autonomy (seen in relativistic rather than absolute, either-or terms) in East Asia's recent history is too great to be ignored. And since some institutionalists themselves acknowledge autonomy as a necessary foundation for developmentally effective relationships with civil society, we should recognize autonomy as a potentially important element of state capacity. State autonomy remains an important analytical concept that deserves the attention of scholars.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AmsdenA. H. (1989) Asia's Next Giant: South Korea and Late Industrialization. New York: Oxford University Press.
2.
AppelbaumR. P.HendersonJ. (eds) (1992) States and Development in the Asian Pacific Rim. Newbury Park CA: Sage.
3.
AtkinsonM. M.ColemanW. D. (1985) ‘Corporatism and Industrial Policy’, in AlanCawson (ed.), Organized Interests and the State: Studies in Meso-Corporatism. London: Sage, pp. 22–44.
4.
AtkinsonM. M.ColemanW. D. (1989) ‘Strong states and weak states: Sectoral policy networks in advanced capitalist countries’, British Journal of Political Science19 (1), 47–66.
5.
BellS. (1995) ‘Between the market and the state: The role of Australian business associations in public policy’, Comparative Politics28 (1), 25–53.
6.
BrownbridgeM.KirkpatrickC. (1999) ‘Financial Sector Regulation: The Lessons of the Asian Crisis’, IDPM Finance and Development Working Paper no. 2. Manchester: Institute for Development Policy and Management.
7.
CallonS. (1995) Divided Sun: MITI and the Breakdown of Japanese High-Tech Industrial Policy, 1975–1993. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.
8.
ClarkC.ChanS. (1994) ‘The developmental role of the state: Moving beyond the developmental state in conceptualizing Asian political economies’, Governance7 (4), 332–59.
9.
DonerR. F. (1992) ‘Limits of state strength: Towards an institutionalist view of economic development’, World Politics44 (3), 398–431.
10.
The Economist (1998a) ‘Frozen miracle’, Survey, March 7.
11.
The Economist (1998b) ‘To travel hopefully’, Survey, September 5.
12.
EvansP. (1992) ‘The State as Problem and Solution: Predation, Embedded Autonomy and Adjustment’, in StephanHaggardRobertKaufman (eds), The Politics of Economic Adjustment: International Constraints, Distributive Politics, and the State. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
13.
EvansP. (1995) Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformation. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
14.
EvansP.RueschemeyerD.SkocpolT. (eds) (1985) Bringing the State Back In. New York: Cambridge University Press.
15.
GillsB. K. (1996) ‘Economic liberalization and reform in South Korea in the 1990s: A “coming of age” or a case of “graduation blues”?’, Third World Quarterly17 (4), 667–88.
16.
HawesG.LiuH. (1993) ‘Explaining the dynamics of the Southeast Asian political economy: State, society and the search for economic growth’, World Politics45 (4), 629–60.
17.
HendersonJ.AppelbaumR. P. (1992) ‘Situating the State in the East Asian Development Process’, in AppelbaumR. P.HendersonJ. (eds), States and Development in the Asian Pacific Rim. Newbury Park CA: Sage, pp. 1–26.
18.
JohnsonC. (1982) MITI and the Japanese Miracle: The Growth of Industrial Policy, 1925–1975. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.
19.
KongT. Y. (1995) ‘From relative autonomy to consensual development: The case of South Korea’, Political Studies43 (4), 630–44.
20.
KongT. Y. (1996) ‘Corruption and its institutional foundations: The experience of South Korea’, IDS Bulletin27 (2), 48–55.
21.
KrasnerS. D. (1978) Defending the National Interest: Raw Materials, Investment and US Foreign Policy. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
22.
MannM. (1984) ‘The autonomous power of the state: Its origins, mechanisms and results’, Archives Européennes de SociologieXXV (2), 185–213.
23.
MigdalJ.KohliA.ShueV. (eds) (1994) State Power and Social Forces: Domination and Transformation in the Third World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24.
MoonC.-I.PrasadR. (1994) ‘Beyond the developmental state: Networks, politics, and institutions’, Governance7 (4), 360–86.
25.
MoranJ. (1999) ‘Patterns of corruption and development in East Asia’, Third World Quarterly20 (3), 569–87.
26.
NorthD. (1990) Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
27.
OlsonM. (1982) The Rise and Decline of Nations: Economic Growth, Stagflation, and Social Rigidities. New Haven CT: Yale University Press.
28.
ÖnişZiya (1991) ‘The logic of the developmental state’, Comparative Politics24 (1), 109–26.
29.
PolidanoC. (2000) ‘Measuring public sector capacity’, World Development28 (5), 805–22.
30.
PutnamR. D. (1993) Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
31.
RemmerK. L. (1997) ‘Theoretical decay and theoretical development: The resurgence of institutional analysis’, World Politics50 (1), 34–61.
32.
RodanG. (1989) The Political Economy of Singapore's Industrialization: National State and International Capital. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
33.
WadeR. (1990) Governing the Market: Economic Theory and the Role of Government in East Asian Industrialization. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
