ABSTRACT
Why have some states in late developing countries been more effective at growth-promotion than other states? Such variation is more a function of the quality than of the degree of state intervention. Neo-patrimonial states blur the distinction between the private and the public realm; in much of sub-Saharan Africa, such states came into being during the colonial era, and they have proved highly ineffective at promoting industrialization and growth. States in Latin America have been more effective economic actors, but their performance has often been constrained, both by the commodity-dependent economies they have inherited and by the nature of the ruling classes that have often preferred an integration in the global economy. Following decolonization, many Asian countries have sought instead to develop complex economies with significant national industry. In this important sense, such Asian countries as China, India, and South Korea – not to mention Japan – have sought to emulate the advanced industrial countries and, so far, with some success.
