State and Economic Development

Management & Marketing, 2018

This paper discusses, from a conceptual and theoretical perspective, the recent debates on the relation between the state and the market as drivers of national development. Since the end of the Cold War, three periods are distinguishable according to the way in which development is discussed, envisaged, and designed through state policies. The first one starts from the end of the Cold War and leads to the 2008-2009 crisis, the second includes the ten years of recovery, while the last is unfolding at the moment. The argument takes globalization into account as the background for development, during the three decades observed. The paper analyses the way in which the state-market relationship was envisaged during each period, both in the developed and emerging economies. The paper identifies the factors that ensure steady development, with an emphasis on current challenges. Lastly, the paper presents the particular experience of Central and Eastern Europe during its transition from the...

2012

One disagreement that divides students of globalization and national development is the influence of international capitalism on economic growth and human welfare in developing countries. Another is the role of national states in harnessing global markets to serve broad-based human welfare. Those in the "neoliberal" camp view international capitalism as an unalloyed benefit that spurs economic growth, but consider strong, interventionist states counterproductive and repressive. Critics of globalization view international markets with skepticism, but champion the need for strong redistributionist governments in spreading both wealth and welfare. Using a maximal sample of LDCs (N=131) over the longest time period possible , we employ pooled time-series analysis with country fixed effects to determine whether a prima facie case can be made for either perspective. Regressing both economic growth and changes in infant mortality, our results broadly justify a "neoliberal" perspective in the contemporary development of LDCs, but some forms of government spending also contribute to prosperity and human welfare (i.e., education and the military), which tempers our conclusions.

Third World Quarterly, 2004

The rise of the neoliberal consensus The 1980s witnessed a paradigmatic shift in the evaluation of the role the state should play in promoting economic growth in the developing world. Against a general sense of fatigue caused by the accumulation of international economic crises and a history of inefficient state intervention in the economy in Africa, Latin America and Eastern Europe, the state-led approach to development lost the intellectual and political legitimacy it had enjoyed since the 1930s. 1 Emboldened by the perceived bankruptcy of the model, an ascending coalition of reform-minded academics, policy makers, and political elites gained prominence by calling for a return to a market-based economy. 2 The set of neoliberal policies they advocated, which eventually converged in what came to be known as the

This chapter examines the emergence of neoliberalism in development economics and development studies, and the implications of the neoliberal transition across both scholarship and policy-making. It argues that the meaning and significance of neoliberal theory and its policy implications have shifted over time, place and issue, and that there can be inconsistencies across its component parts. These are, often, due to tensions between the rhetorical and policy worlds built by the advocates of neoliberalism and the realities of social and economic reproduction in the so-called "developing" countries. Examination of these tensions can help to illuminate the weaknesses of the Washington consensus, the reasons for its displacement by the post-Washington consensus led by Joseph Stiglitz, and the ensuing disputes between the post-Washington consensus and its predecessor around the shortcomings of "deregulation", and the desirability and optimal extent of state intervention in the economy. The chapter concludes that the differences between the Washington consensus and the post-Washington consensus have been overblown and, in particular, that they share much the same conception of development and attachment to neoliberalism, and the same limited commitment to democracy. However, because of its greater plasticity the post-Washington consensus is better positioned to weather the criticisms levelled against the Washington consensus, especially after the impact of the economic crisis starting in 2007.

International Relations. Rutgers University., 2016

Kyklos, 2005

This paper discusses the recent literature on the role of the state in economic development. It concludes that government incentives to enact sound policies are key to economic success. It also discusses the evidence on what happens after episodes of economic and political liberalizations, asking whether political liberalizations strengthen government incentives to enact sound economic policies. The answer is mixed. Most episodes of economic liberalizations are indeed preceded by political liberalizations. But the countries that have done better are those that have managed to open up the economy first, and only later have liberalized their political system. JEL Code: O1, O11.

Liberalism and neoliberalism thoughts have been widely discussed in the literature. In this study, the researcher aimed to conduct a comprehensive examination of the development perspectives based on the liberalist verses the neoliberalist philosophies and economics theories. The study is similarly structured by focusing on the theoretical and empirical analysis of the genesis, assumptions, evolution, and criticisms of the two paradigms. In order to analyze, the author utilized a systematic review of the materials that are available in publication regarded with the liberal and neo-liberal development views. Literature indicate that excessive state regulation of the economies, which distorts the process of economic development and results in inefficiencies in the allocation of economic goods, is the fundamental cause of the ongoing and yet unresolved global economic crisis. It also involves enhanced state intervention to roll forward new forms of governance, including state intervention, that are purportedly more suited to a market-driven. Thus, the researcher recommends that developing countries contextualize the developmental state paradigm of development with prevailing social, cultural, and political history that each country had internally.

Antipode, 2021

Official discourses of Development are being redefined. If the key geopoliti-cal contexts shaping the postwar Development project were decolonisation and the Cold War, the defining world-historical transformations shaping the emerging vision of Development are the expansion of state capitalism and the rise of China. The IMF, the World Bank, the OECD, the G20, other multilaterals, and bilateral partners are increasingly taking stock of the rise of state capitalism, and acting as ideational vectors of this emerging regime. However, this new "state capitalist normal" is also portrayed as carrying risks. There is anxiety regarding the direction the political form of global capital accumulation is heading: with the unchecked proliferation of state capitalism possibly blunting competition, politicising economic relations, and intensifying geoeconomic tensions. This anxiety underwrites the current re-articulation of Development, one which embraces the state as promoter, supervisor, and owner of capital; even as it critiques China's use of similar instruments.