INTERNATIONAL POLITICS

International Politics



Abstract

A contemporary theory that has surfaced in the last few decades is the developmental state theory which sought to explain the precipitous economic progress of East Asian states after the Second World War. Although the initial outcome of adopting developmental strategies among East Asian states have shown the theory's potency as a basis for economic development policies, subsequent events especially the results of Southeast Asian attempts to pattern itself after developmental strategies have put into question the developmental state's efficacy as a long-term arrangement. Specifically, the Philippines' status as an “anti-developmental” state serves as a channel for criticism of the developmental state theory through other IPE theories not only in terms of strategies and policies, but also in the deeper level of societal conflict and political structures.

Table of Contents

Introduction3

The Origins Of The Developmental State And Its Basic Premises3

The Philippines As An “Anti-Developmental” State4

Marxist Critique To The Developmental State Attempts Of The Philippines5

Towards Reassessing And Reevaluating Theories Of Economic Development7

International Politics

Introduction

One cannot speak of International Political Economy without at least wading through the fundamental debate between the degree of importance of political structures and market forces in economic development. This dynamic serves as one of the basic foundations of the discipline itself as well as subsequent major schools of thought. Theories in International Economy have been founded on empirical observations on the economic conditions of a set of cases and are, as Robert Cox posits, critical of the circumstances from which certain politico-economic configurations emerge.

The Origins of the Developmental State and Its Basic Premises

The literature on developmental state theory attributes its conception to Chalmers Johnson who argued in his book MITI and the Japanese Miracle, that “Japan's road to capitalism differed from that of the West, with the central role played by a state elite subordinating market forces to a strategic plan to force-march the country to industrialization.” The origins of the theory are situated in the analysis of the Japanese “economic miracle” after the Second World War. It is a historical fact that Japan suffered one of the greatest damages after WWII and it had to face the challenge of rebuilding its vital infrastructures and public institutions (Wheeler, 1992, pp. 463).

Instead of taking the route of liberalism—that is, privatization of firms, engaging in free trade, and deregulation—the Japanese state, through its Ministry of Trade and Industry, opted to use nationalist measures to support its recovery and economic development. Local firms and enterprises were state-supported; exports were the main source of national income; and industrial technology was borrowed from more developed countries in order to jumpstart production at the domestic level. However, the surge of these investments did not necessarily signal the liberalization of the developmental states; rather, they maintained their minimum participation in the strategies of the other state. This model is what is usually referred to the developmental state model which took root in East Asian countries like Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. The developmental state strategy became the basis for the distinctiveness of Asian ...