The Developmental State model and the challenges for Lebanon
Workshop, 15-16 February 2002, Beirut

| about | agenda | participants | summaries and papers | next |

Summaries and Papers - Summary 1: Alice Sindzingre - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS, Paris)

THE DEVELOPMENTAL STATE, PATRIMONIAL STATE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT:
ARE SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA AND EAST ASIA COMPARABLE?

The concept of the developmental State continues to be the most fertile conceptual issue in development economics, more than a decade after its formulation, which has followed from the spectacular performances of the North-East Asian countries, then the other Asian countries, for it has succeeded in linking and explaining phenomena resulting simultaneously from economic, political and institutional structures. It is has not been included in many orthodox analyses, whether carried out in academic research or by the Bretton Woods institutions.  The concept was outweighed by a preponderance of quantitative analyses, as it was believed to belong to the sphere of political economy rather than pure economics.  The crisis that broke out in Asian States in 1997-1998 reinforced the lack of interest in this concept displayed by mainstream analyses, especially the ones of the Bretton Woods institutions. However, in contrast with this short-term view, it appears that this concept is still very relevant. The same applies to its “exportability” to other historical and economic contexts, especially when considering the capacities for recovery of the Asian countries and the poor performances of other regions, such as Sub-Saharan Africa.  The economic stagnation of Sub-Saharan Africa has, in fact, often been interpreted as an effect of the neo-patrimonial dimension of its States.

The paper studies the respective features of the two paradigms of the developmental State and the neo-patrimonial State.  It shows that they can be contrasted according to a series of aspects: e. g. colonial history, international integration, determining factors of growth, re-distributive capacities and State credibility, and the strengthening of institutions.  However, the borderlines between the two paradigms are more tenuous in other areas, such as external dependence – on developed countries growth, foreign direct investment, investors sentiments -, the overlapping of private and public interests, or the nature and extent of corruption.  Developing States all have patrimonial and “rentier” features.  Unique domestic and global economic conditions resulting from the use of rents, the interaction between domestic politics and institutions, and the policies of the developed States and their firms, have enabled certain States to engage in developmental trajectories.  However, they are permanently subject to the risks of changes in these economic and political situations and can therefore deviate from the virtuous trajectories.  The paper examines in succession the changes in theories on the developing State in the academic literature and within international financial institutions, the concept of the neo-patrimonial State, and the concept of the developmental State. The function of social policies is underlined, because they constitute an important dimension of developmental States and of their credibility, while they are absent in most neo-patrimonial States. Then, the paper examines the contribution of institutions and political regimes to the contrasts between the two paradigms: the nature of institutions and the links between them are ingredients of the developmental States, but the relationships with specific political regimes appear to be more complex. Next, the influence of corruption is analyzed. More than corruption per se, the use of rents, and their shifting - or not - towards production, are the criteria of divergence between the two types of States.  Finally, the paper examines the role of the international context in the construction of the two State models – especially the historical factors and the role of colonization, and the reforms introduced by multilateral institutions -, then the international environment created by globalization, which have been determining factors in the divergence between these two paradigms and their economic performances. The pessimistic situation of Sub-Saharan Africa shows the urgency of the reconstruction, if not the construction, of States in this part of the world.

 

| next | workshops & seminars | top |

| home | about us | contact us | research | workshops | publications | links |