About Us


\| home \| about us \| contact us \| research \| workshops \| publications \| links \|
WORKSHOPS AND SEMINARS
The Developmental State model and the challenges for Lebanon Workshop, 15-16 February 2002, Beirut
\| about \| agenda \| participants \| summaries and papers \|
Many political economy studies of Third-World countries have tried to analyze the reasons for the successes and failures of development policies. The Developmental State model, put forward by several studies, was based on approaches and public policies that have proven successful in North-Eastern Asia countries. Analysts were interested in these countries' capacity to develop into industrialized nations, through a structuralist approach to the economic role of the State, with a particular focus on the support to the industrial sector. Experiences, subsumed under the Developmental State model, offer an organizational functioning and economic mechanisms worth exploring and maybe even emulating for countries like Lebanon. They may be of interest at least on three levels: 1. As specific practices of economic openness 2. As implemented industrial policies. 3. As modes of public administration, urban planning and other public policies. At another level, analyses in terms of the Neo-patrimonial State offer a major contribution to the understanding of factors that obstruct development. Such studies portray the development blockage in the concerned countries as linked to the "privatization of the state" or the "private appropriation of public offices by officials". The notion of neo-patrimonialism has a wide analytical scope, which enables it to explain the political economy, and accordingly the political and administrative dysfunctions of many under-developed countries. The two approaches of the State (Developmental state and Neo-patrimonial state) do not explicitly inspire most of the works and debates related to the Lebanese political economy. Lebanon's public politicies have been able to get away for years without being confronted to significant critical analysis or comparative evaluations. The economic debate, especially the one related to economic policies, has been relatively limited. No sustained public debate has been conducted on the means and objectives of such policies. This absence of an in-depth public debate is a major aggravating factor in the current Lebanese crisis whose persistence may pose a great threat to the country's future. Analyses of the Lebanese system conducted during the past decade either define it within a communitarian politics' framework or within that of the consociational system. In Lebanon, an analysis based on the neo-patrimonial model may open significant opportunities to escape the limitations of culturalist analyses. The neo-patrimonial analysis greatest merit is that it allows for a comparative study of the Lebanese economic and social systems. Through a clear diagnosis of the system's economic and social ills, it could help putting Lebanon on the right track for an equitable and effective development. The objective of this seminar was to present the two approaches to political economy discussed earlier in a perspective of comparative regional analysis, and to analyze the Lebanese context in the light of what they offer as theoretical and conceptual frameworks. In this perspective, the seminar addressed two concerns. First, it carried a pedagogical and informative purpose, through the presentation of the two analytical frameworks that may not have had enough exposure on the Lebanese scene. The second concern was prescriptive and hoped to put those two analytical tools to contribution in assessing the Lebanese situation, through the analysis of industrial policies, administrative reform and urban planning issues as components of the developmental state model. Structure of the seminar The workshop was structured around four main axes: The first introduced the two concepts of Developmental State and Neo-patrimonial State, and focused on the relation of each of them to economic development, through examples of African and Asian countries; The second axis presented a diagnosis of the Lebanese experience based on the two theoretical models. It discussed the Lebanese experience of economic development, during the pre and post-conflict periods; The third axis focused, on the one hand, on the present applicability of the Developmental State model within the context of a globalization that may hinder its implementation; and on the other hand, it discussed the validity of the developmentalist policies pursued by Asian countries for an economy of the size of Lebanon, through a round table including local and international researchers; The fourth axis examined the public policies needed for a better economic development for Lebanon. Interventions focused on industrial policies, administrative reform and urban planning; A closing session of the seminar assessed the input of the two-day debates on the developmental experience in Lebanon within the general framework of the Developmental State model. This session tried to formulate recommendations regarding public policies that could be implemented in today's Lebanon.
\| workshops & seminars \| top \|
\| home \| about us \| contact us \| research \| workshops \| publications \| links \|


\| home \| about us \| contact us \| research \| workshops \| publications \| links \|
WORKSHOPS AND SEMINARS
The Developmental State model and the challenges for Lebanon Workshop, 15-16 February 2002, Beirut
\| about \| agenda \| participants \| summaries and papers \|
Many political economy studies of Third-World countries have tried to analyze the reasons for the successes and failures of development policies. The Developmental State model, put forward by several studies, was based on approaches and public policies that have proven successful in North-Eastern Asia countries. Analysts were interested in these countries' capacity to develop into industrialized nations, through a structuralist approach to the economic role of the State, with a particular focus on the support to the industrial sector. Experiences, subsumed under the Developmental State model, offer an organizational functioning and economic mechanisms worth exploring and maybe even emulating for countries like Lebanon. They may be of interest at least on three levels: 1. As specific practices of economic openness 2. As implemented industrial policies. 3. As modes of public administration, urban planning and other public policies. At another level, analyses in terms of the Neo-patrimonial State offer a major contribution to the understanding of factors that obstruct development. Such studies portray the development blockage in the concerned countries as linked to the "privatization of the state" or the "private appropriation of public offices by officials". The notion of neo-patrimonialism has a wide analytical scope, which enables it to explain the political economy, and accordingly the political and administrative dysfunctions of many under-developed countries. The two approaches of the State (Developmental state and Neo-patrimonial state) do not explicitly inspire most of the works and debates related to the Lebanese political economy. Lebanon's public politicies have been able to get away for years without being confronted to significant critical analysis or comparative evaluations. The economic debate, especially the one related to economic policies, has been relatively limited. No sustained public debate has been conducted on the means and objectives of such policies. This absence of an in-depth public debate is a major aggravating factor in the current Lebanese crisis whose persistence may pose a great threat to the country's future. Analyses of the Lebanese system conducted during the past decade either define it within a communitarian politics' framework or within that of the consociational system. In Lebanon, an analysis based on the neo-patrimonial model may open significant opportunities to escape the limitations of culturalist analyses. The neo-patrimonial analysis greatest merit is that it allows for a comparative study of the Lebanese economic and social systems. Through a clear diagnosis of the system's economic and social ills, it could help putting Lebanon on the right track for an equitable and effective development. The objective of this seminar was to present the two approaches to political economy discussed earlier in a perspective of comparative regional analysis, and to analyze the Lebanese context in the light of what they offer as theoretical and conceptual frameworks. In this perspective, the seminar addressed two concerns. First, it carried a pedagogical and informative purpose, through the presentation of the two analytical frameworks that may not have had enough exposure on the Lebanese scene. The second concern was prescriptive and hoped to put those two analytical tools to contribution in assessing the Lebanese situation, through the analysis of industrial policies, administrative reform and urban planning issues as components of the developmental state model. Structure of the seminar The workshop was structured around four main axes: The first introduced the two concepts of Developmental State and Neo-patrimonial State, and focused on the relation of each of them to economic development, through examples of African and Asian countries; The second axis presented a diagnosis of the Lebanese experience based on the two theoretical models. It discussed the Lebanese experience of economic development, during the pre and post-conflict periods; The third axis focused, on the one hand, on the present applicability of the Developmental State model within the context of a globalization that may hinder its implementation; and on the other hand, it discussed the validity of the developmentalist policies pursued by Asian countries for an economy of the size of Lebanon, through a round table including local and international researchers; The fourth axis examined the public policies needed for a better economic development for Lebanon. Interventions focused on industrial policies, administrative reform and urban planning; A closing session of the seminar assessed the input of the two-day debates on the developmental experience in Lebanon within the general framework of the Developmental State model. This session tried to formulate recommendations regarding public policies that could be implemented in today's Lebanon.
\| workshops & seminars \| top \|
\| home \| about us \| contact us \| research \| workshops \| publications \| links \|