States and Development

  • Matthew Lange
  • Dietrich Rueschemeyer
Part of the Political Evolution and Institutional Change book series (PEIC)

Abstract

Why are states important for economic growth and for the social transformations that go with it? Adam Smith (1776) and the Scottish enlightenment gave a first answer: the state can guarantee the institutions enabling individuals and firms to engage in economic activities that bring economic growth.The institutional infrastructure around contract, property, tort law, and incorporation allows the exchange of goods and services as well as the accumulation, lending, and investing of capital to proceed with a reasonable degree of ease, security, and predictability.This idea is also at the core of Max Weber’s (1968) analysis of the role of law in the rise of capitalism, and it is similarly central to the theoretical framework of the economic historian and Nobel Laureate Douglass North (e.g., 1981).

Keywords

Depression Europe Marketing Coherence Assure 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Esman, Milton and Norman Uphof f. 1984. Local Organizations: Intermediaries in Local Development. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Evans, Peter B. 1979. Dependent Development:The Alliance of Multinational, State, and Local Capital in Brazil. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  3. —. 1995. Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Gerschenkron, Alexander. 1962. Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective: A Book of Essays. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Gorski, Philip. 1993.“The Protestant Ethic Revisited: Disciplinary Revolution and State Formation in Holland and Prussia.” American Journal of Sociology, 99, 2: 265–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Grampp, William D. 1993. “An Appreciation of Mercantilism.” In Mercantilist Economics, edited by L.Magnusson. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 59–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hardin, R. 1982. Collective Action. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Heckscher, Eli F. 1933. “Mercantilism.” In Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, edited by E.R.A.Seligman and A. Johnson. NewYork: Macmillan, vol. 10, 333–339.Google Scholar
  9. —. 1955. Mercantilism. London: George Allen & Uwin.Google Scholar
  10. Herlitz, Lars. 1993. “Conceptions of History and Society in Mercantilism, 1650–1730.” In Mercantilist Economics, edited by L. Magnusson. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 87–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hirschman, Albert O. 1958. The Strategy of Economic Development. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Houtzager, Peter. 2003. “Introduction: From Polycentrism to the Polity.” In Changing Paths: International Development and the New Politics of Inclusion,edited by P. Houtzager and M. Moore. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  13. Johnson, Chalmers. 1982. MITI and the Japanese Miracle:The Growth of Industrial Policy, 1925–1975. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Koo, Hagen. 1987. “The Interplay of State, Social Class, and World System in East Asian Development:The Cases of South Korea and Taiwan.” In The Political Economy of the New Asian Industrialism, edited by F. Deyo. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 165–181.Google Scholar
  15. Lenski, Gerhard and Jean, Lenski. 1974. Human Societies:An Introduction to Macrosociology.New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  16. Magnusson, Lars (ed.). 1993. Mercantilist Economics. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  17. Mahoney, James. 2000.“Path Dependence in Historical Sociology.” Theory and Society,29: 507–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mahoney, James and Dietrich Rueschemeyer (eds.). 2003. Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences. NewYork: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Mamdani, Mahmood. 1996. Citizen and Subject. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. 1978.“The German Ideology.” In The Marx-Engels Reader, edited by R.Tucker. NewYork: Norton, 146–200.Google Scholar
  21. North, Douglass. 1981. Structure and Change in Economic History.NewYork: Norton.Google Scholar
  22. Olson, Mancur. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Perrotta, Cosimo. 1993.“Early Spanish Mercantilism:The First Analysis of Underdevelopment.” In Mercantilist Economics, edited by L. Magnusson. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 17–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pierson, Paul. 2000. “Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics.” American Political Science Review, 94, 2: 251–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. —. 2004. Politics in Time: History, Institutions, and Social Analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Polanyi, Karl. 1957. The Great Transformation. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  27. Putnam, Robert. 1993. Making Democracy Work.Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Rueschemeyer, Dietrich and Peter Evans. 1985.“The State and Economic Transformation:Toward an Analysis of the Conditions Underlying Effective Intervention.” In Bringing the State Back In,Google Scholar
  29. edited by P. Evans, D. Rueschemeyer, and T. Skocpol. New York: Cambridge University Press, 44–77.Google Scholar
  30. Scott, James C. 1998. Seeing Like A State:Why Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Shin, Gi-Wook. 1998.“Agrarian Conflict and the Origins of Korean Capitalism.” American Journal of Sociology, 5: 1309–1351.Google Scholar
  32. Smith, Adam. 1776. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of theWealth of Nations. NewYork:Random House Modern Library.Google Scholar
  33. Stiglitz, Joseph. 2002. Globalization and Its Discontents. NewYork:W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  34. Strayer, Joseph R. 1970. On the Medieval Origins of the Modern State. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Taylor, M. 1987. The Possibility of Cooperation. NewYork: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Tilly, Charles. 1984. Big Structures, Large Processes, Huge Comparisons. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  37. —. 1985.“War Making and State Making as Organized Crime.” In Bringing the State Back In, edited by P. B. Evans, D. Rueschemeyer, and T. Skocpol. NewYork: Cambridge University Press, 169–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. —. 1992. Coercion, Capital, and European States,AD990–1990. Cambridge: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  39. Trubek, David M. 1972. “Max Weber on Law and the Rise of Capitalism.” Wisconsin Law Review, 3: 720–753.Google Scholar
  40. Veblen, Thorstein. 1934. The Theory of the Leisure Class. NewYork:Modern Library.Google Scholar
  41. Wade, Robert. 1990. Governing the Market: Economic Theory and the Role of Government in Taiwan’s Industrialization. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  42. —. 1995. “Resolving the State-Market Dilemma in East Asia.” In The Role of the State in Economic Change, edited by H. Chang and R. Rowthorn. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 114–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. —. 2000. “Out of the Box: Rethinking the Governance of International Financial Markets.” Journal of Human Development, 1, 1: 145–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Weber, Max. 1968. Economy and Society. NewYork: Bedminster Press.Google Scholar
  45. Weingast, Barry R. 1993.“Constitutions as Government Structures—The Political Foundations of Secure Markets.” Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 149, 1: 286–311.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Matthew Lange and Dietrich Rueschemeyer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew Lange
  • Dietrich Rueschemeyer

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations