The
article provides a demonstration of how theories of the state provide
an explanation to economic development. Readers will learn that factors
of social change need to be unpacked and determined so as to guide
sociopolitical analyses.
Shih
begins his discourse with a brief foreword, a set of remarks on the
value of statism. Statism is not a wholistic entity. The scope of its
application includes other intellectual roots which consider the
elevation of the state to the highest status. The names Amsden, Cumings,
Crane, and Evans are not strange to statists.
Amsden in the conclusion of one of her compositions asserts the inadequacy of dependency theories in the explanation of Taiwan's
story. Cumings has been often cited by statists for his vista on the
economic theory of product cycles and on the analysis of authoritarian
regimes. Crane on the other hand presents an argument on the possibility
of ascent in the world system with credit to an active role played by
the state.
The
paper comprises of a three-tiered objective:
(1) To present a critique
of the main thesis of the Statist Approach
(2) An empirical application
on the case of Taiwan
(3) Provide a test of theoretical validity in
order to balance, through an assessment of two policies: Land Reform
Policy and Import-Substitution to Export Promotion.
Shih, Cheng-Feng considers the following main theses of the Statist for his paper:
“…more universal regularities may be generalized by taking lessons from economic performance in NICs.”
“…dependent development is possible if the state plays a more role in the process of economic development.”
COROLLARY: Negative consequences from dependency may be mediated by state intervention.
“…growth and equity may be reached with proper manipulation of strategies.”
CRITIQUE
There
is the inquiry posed on the identification of the ultimate determinant
of changes. It is out of ontological consistency and an act of faith
that statists must specify what they believe to be the ultimate
determinant of changes. The relevance of this is that sometimes
political analyses are more applicable if they could present a hierarchy
of causality to readers and students to guide them in analyzing the
factors for social change; although this hierarchy should not be
dogmatically followed. Instances such as this are present between
necessary and sufficient factors; enduring and contingent conditions;
dialectics or interplay of factors, conditions and processes.
It
appears that statists never pay attention to the Agent-Structure. There
is a lack of clarity as to which factor dominates. While statists
maintain that external factors largely decide the fate of the state,
there is the calim that the strong state may play an active role in
national development. A spectrum may be of use as to when the structure
plays a more decisive role or when the social agent is able to exert
more influence on processes so as to put into effect a change.
Much
ado has been posed as to composing an effective working definition of
'strong state', when the concept of 'society' is being overlooked. But
what about the amount of influence that intervening social forces exert
upon the state? The portrayal of the state as an omnipotent one neglects
the existence of other social forces and treats the society as passive.
Does
having a strong state mean having a weak society? Does having a strong
society denote a weak state? A general accepted definition of state
autonomy goes as follows: it is the extent to which the state is able to
isolate itself from domestic dominant classes and to contain or even
suppress their interests in policy-making. Theda Skocpol on the other
hand provides her version which interprets state autonomy as the
strength of society which determines the strength of the state. Policy
efficacy then, is a feasible yardstick of state strength and or state
autonomy. From examining these primary considerations it is concluded
that state autonomy is a relative phenomenon.
As
to addressing the inquiry of whose interests should the state uphold,
this is also answerable through Skocpol. Ideally, the state should
uphold the interests of all interest groups. But most studies indicate
focus on dominant classes, majority of which comprise of capitalist.
Shih tells readers that class stratification isn't always the case. Taiwan
is considered once more, an illustration of dominant ethnic groups.
Ethnic cleavages having been present between dominant mainlanders and
the subordinate Taiwanese.
According
to Shih, there is the undermining of the alleged domination of the
strong state. The status of the strong state as an independent
explanatory power is lost due to the consideration that state autonomy
is being conditioned by the strenth of the society. This challenges the
postulate that the strong state is an independent explanatory power.
Statists assign Taiwan the status of being dependent, being based on the judgment of Taiwan's engagement in international trade and reception of foreign investment.
Why
did the state decide to undertake all those policies, such as land
reforms, or the decision to move from import-substitution to export
promotion? Land reform was implemented to destroy the economic base of
the emerging Taiwanese middle class. So according to Shih, land reform
was a means toward self-preservation and not economic development… and
that the implementation of such policy was not a product of careful
planning. Export-promotion was a rational choice. It must be mentioned
that the monopoly of political or economic power by the state is not
equivalent to state autonomy and that the possession of capacities does
not guarantee insulation from society. Further, a holistic state does
not guarantee that its plans will all be translated into policies and
will be successfully implemented.
CONCLUSIONS
Statists
argue that it is because of the active role that the strong state plays
that "Bringing-the-state-back-in" is a way of explaining dependent
development. Being autonomous, strong state is able to isolate itself
from the demands of the dominant group of the society and thus to
actively formulate any policy that seems optimal for the general
interests of the counts as a whole.
There is the failure of the statists in distinguishing whether systemic or internal factors cause change.
The
degree to which the state is strong is not only determined by its own
organizational coherency, but also by the strength of society. This
renders the statist explanation incomplete if it continually neglects
society.
The strength of the state cannot be measured simply in terms of the full quantity of its capacities.
There
is circular argumentation between successful policy and the strong
state, being that the policy is successful owing to the strong state.
The state is strong because its policy is successful.
ASSESSMENT: All is not lost in the Statist Paradigm...
The
author, Shih, should have been more informed of the not-so-recent work
of Joel Migdal entitled State in Society: Studying How States and
Societies Transform and Constitute One Another (2001). Amazon.com
reviews call Migdal's book a refreshing account, a discussion how
societies and states create and maintain distinct ways of structuring
day to day life, including the nature of rules that govern people's
behavior, whom they benefit and whom they disadvantage, which sorts of
elements unite and divide people and what shared meanings people hold
about their relations with others and their place in the world.
As
a useful tool of analysis, it is recommended to locate the statist
approach in a broad spectrum ranging from extreme to moderate. Crane –
Cuming – Migdal – Evans – Amsden – Haggard, extending from least
moderate to moderate to extreme.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Shih Cheng-Feng, Strong State as an Explanatory Variable of Economic Development: with a Focus on the Case of Taiwan.
http://www.wufi.org/tw/eng/strongst.htm Accessed: 21 June 2008 1500 HRS.
Amsden, Alice H. 1985. "The State and Taiwan's Economic Development." in
Peter B. Evans, Dietrich Rueschemeyer, and Theda Skocpol, eds. Bringing the State Back In. pp. 78-106. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
-------. 1979. "Taiwan's Economic History: A Case of Etatisme and a Challenge to Dependency Theory." Modern China. Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 341-80.
Migdal, Joel S. 2001. State in Society: Studying How States and Societies Transform and Constitute One Another. Cambridge University Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment