Aplicativo para la gestión de inventarios

Institutions are essential for economic development and social transformation. The differential ability of countries to engineer effective and equitable economic processes depends on their institutional capacity and diversity (Chang, 2002). Institutions expected to determine the capacity of the state to formulate and implement policies and strategies in a credible manner to attain the social well-being of citizens. However, in practice, building institutions is not an easy task; some are internal to the institutions themselves, while others have a more social dimension that requires long-term strategies to regulate social behaviour. There are costs associated with nurturing and running new institutions, so institutions are not easy to change. In practice, buildinginstitutions has been achieved through a mixture of deliberate imitation and adaptation of experiences from elsewhere, as well as local innovations (based on the national economic, social, cultural and other aspects). Institutional capacities for growth and development are socially engineered, based on ‘learning-by-doing’ or ‘trial and error’ and differed across societies/nations.

The IPE acknowledged the concept of the OIE, which does not take an individual’s motivations and perceptions as given, but argues that these are shaped by the surrounding economic, social and cultural institutions. The OIEs understood institutions as a special type of social structure with the potential and power to mould the capacities and behaviour of agents: they have the capacity to change aspirations instead of merely enabling or constraining them (Hodgson, 2006). The OIE economists claimed that it is necessary to examine the state’s role in development through the allocation and deployment of resources to improve the collective life of the society (Hodgson, 2006). The argument of the IPE, therefore, is consistent with that of the OIE regarding the role of the state and the existence of a wide range of diverse institutions for the allocation of resources for purpose of sustainable development and social transformation.

The IPE adopts a political economy approach for the analysis of both the state and the market characterised by institutional diversity (Chang, 2002). In contrast, the proponents of neoliberal economics (i.e. NIE) have little to say about the issue of institutional diversity because they believe in an abstract market economy. Moreover, the NIE School claims that markets can and should be free from politics. However, in practice, the emergence of markets often needed heavy state involvement and a well-functioning market economy, which is impossible without the existence of a well-functioning state. For instance, the developmental crises that many developing countries faced in the last two decades of the twentieth century were due to the assumption of the primacy of market institutions and the belief that these developed naturally so long as the state did not interfere with their evaluation (Chang, 2003). However, in practice, markets function effectively

79

depending on the existence of diverse institutions (including the state) to regulate who can participate in the system and who cannot.

The IPE postulates a two-way causation between individual motivations and social institutions, rather than a one-way causation from the individual to institutions, as proponents of the NIE believe. It takes strong institutions and politics to break the conceptual shackles of a neoliberal political economy, which dominated the debates on the role of the state (minimal state intervention) in economic development during the last two decades of the twentieth century (Chang, 2002; 2003a). Furthermore, the proponents of the IPE believe that mainstream institutionalists are highly problematic when it comes to understanding the relationship between institutions and economic development, seeing it as linear and uniform across space and time (Chang, 2011). They ignore the impact of economic development on institutions and focus exclusively on how institutions affect development. Instead, the proponents of the IPE believe that economic development has a significant impact on nurturing new institutions and modifying existing ones, and that institutions are crucial for economic development. It is obvious that a well-functioning institutional system helps the state to tackle socio-economic, political and cultural problems, and achieve the development targets they have set. Nevertheless, well-functioning institutions alone will not achieve the development targets of a country – this must be accompanied by human capital development and technological progress. The role of an effective state and the participation of all stakeholders in the development process are equally necessary. When designing effective and strong institutions, a developmental state should build distinctive capacities to achieve its development agenda in a legitimate and credible manner.

The appropriate role of the state in development and social progress has been a central concern of policy- makers since the beginning of capitalism and the rise of development economics after the Second World War made this aspect of economics even more important (Chang, 2003a). Following this, the notion of the developmental state has renewed in the Global South and played a significant role in the economies of the East Asian and Southeast Asian countries since the post-Second World War. A developmental state is distinguished by achieving significant economic growth, as well as resource allocation and redistribution to realise social benefit, which contributes significantly to a better standard of living for a large proportion of the population (Johnson, 1999; Leftwich, 2008). These significant improvements served to legitimate the developmental states in the East Asia. Building the developmental state requires commitment from every stakeholder in the economy but, more importantly, from the state institutions, i.e. political elites.

The capacity of the developmental states to implement effective and coherent development policies and strategies depends on the combination of bureaucratic autonomy, a broad-based state–society coalition/s, institutional and socio-political capabilities, among others. For instance, the East Asian developmental states believed that achieved equitable growth based on a concerted effort by the state to formulate and implement appropriate policies and to nurture institutions based on their own contexts. Some attributes of a developmental state worth mentioning are:

80

 _{It is an activist state and it is not an overseer, i.e. it is an active participator in the development} process;

 _{It is consistent in its pursuit of development objectives;}

 It evolves in the light of the changing needs of the society in which it is embedded;  It is well-stated, risk-taking (can assist entrepreneurs to take risks);

 _{It is legitimate and paves the way for democracy in the long-term; and}

 It establishes a ‘pilot agency’ within the central bureaucracy whose policy heartland is the industrial profile of the economy and the future growth path of the country.

The East Asian countries adopted a developmental state model to break free from the vicious circle of poverty and to sustain economic growth. Many of them made great progress in catching-up, although this has not been straightforward. The East Asian development experience indicates that countries in catch-up situations can quickly transform their economies. Nevertheless, this does not mean that state intervention addresses all development evils and outcomes are mixed, depending on the execution capacity of the states. The East Asian experiences show how the developmental state can promote agricultural transformation and economic development in general. For instance, the Asian Tigers initially abolished landlordism and distributed the land to the rural masses, and eventually embarked on successive development efforts by formulating and implementing appropriate policies and nurturing well-functioning institutions. The success of land reform in Japan, Korea and Taiwan was possible, partly because of the strict imposition of land ownership ceilings in the early days of land reform (Chang, 2009). The role of the state has positively affected investment in public goods such as agricultural research, education, extension, irrigation and infrastructure, thereby increasing agricultural productivity. South Korea and Taiwan, for instance, produced subsidised agricultural inputs via using state-owned enterprises and distributed to farmers through state- managed agricultural cooperatives (Chang, 2009). State-led rural development (accompanied by pro-poor policies with respect to agricultural diversification) leading to higher incomes for farmers was crucial to their success and, conversely, the absence of this led to failure in many of the SSA countries.

However, there is no single blue print development model that is recommended for every country that will lead to success at the same pace. The good development model is the one that a nation adopts based on its own context to achieve sustainable development. However, the East Asian developmental state can indeed serve as a good example of development model than the Euro–American development (neoliberal) model, for today’s developing countries. This is why because a developmental state approach expected to have a room to adopt according to the country’s context. This means, it is considered not as rigid as the neoliberal is one (i.e. imposed based on predetermined terms and conditions). The developmental state model can be expected to adjust/re-adjust based on the contexts of the respective countries and on the dynamism of the existing global political economy.

81

For instance, adopting an appropriate or context-specific development ideology and good developmental policy choices are considered as the key instruments in the success story of Botswana and Mauritius (Beaulier, 2003). Therefore, if other SSA countries want to replicate this success story, they should be expected to adapt the development model to their own contexts and make appropriate development policy choices when they design their development projects. The question is, where good policies come from and why are some more effective than others in achieving substantial development outcomes? The answer simply lies on having (or not having) a context-fitting developmental model and effective institutions. The quality of institutions is critical more than anything for the success of the developmental state, and evidence from East Asia bears this out. Building vibrant institutions and a competent state bureaucracy to formulate and implement development projects are crucial requirements and a priority agenda for the developmental state model (Carroll & Carroll, 1997).

The question is can other SSA countries replicate the success stories of the developmental states. The argument presented in this thesis is yes this is possible (though not necessarily in all of them) if they consider their context and adapt accordingly. However, this does not mean that all SSA countries should follow exactly the same policies and strategies as these successful countries have adopted, and not all SSA countries expected to adopt the developmental state model. For success, they should base their developmental models on their own socio-economic, political, cultural, geographical, and historical circumstances, which are different in each country. However, what is essential to sustain the development process in these countries is a capable developmental state with development policies that boosts public investment in social, physical, and human capital, effective institutions, macroeconomic stability, and the role of market. To build successful developmental states, in particular, the SSA countries should pay attention to the broad-section of embedded state–society or coherent state–society relations among the common features of the classic developmental states. An effective broad-based state–society relationship depends on the capacity of the state bureaucracy and on the existence of strong civil society organisations. The existence of a broad-based state–-society relationship is considered one of the essential instruments to achieve economic transformation by creating a development opportunity for all stakeholders, or by allowing the involvement of all groups of the society in the development process.

In general, committed political leadership must strive to adopt contextually appropriate policies. Even though it can be bitter and challenging, it is possible for African governments to adopt and articulate good development polices and strategies. This is possible only if the political elites start looking inward (recognising their own internal problems) rather than outward (externalising their problems), and resist pressures coming from their former colonial masters and the international institutions to conform to neoliberal paradigms under different terms and tied-conditions, which ultimately hijack their own national development interests.

As a production input in agriculture, irrigated water is an important socio-economic ‘good’, playing a positive role in improving the livelihood of farm households, and ‘bad’ when it has negative externalities

82

(Hussain & Hanjra, 2004). Irrigation can certainly improve agricultural productivity, together with other modern agricultural inputs. However, irrigation technology is both expensive and complex in terms of capital and institutional requirements, and is often managed in the context of national governance. Governments have facilitated rural development by providing considerable public subsidies for the installation of irrigation infrastructure and other modern agricultural inputs to support the beneficiary farm households and to transform the agricultural sector in general. Irrigation management relates to the broader issues of water- resource management and economic development issues that demand the involvement of various stakeholders and diverse institutions at different levels; increasingly this means joint management and partnership among different stakeholders. Building local leadership skills and institutional capacity, and changing the awareness of the beneficiary farmers are key factors for the successful participatory irrigation management approach.

However, building suitable and workable institutions is not easy and it demands commitment from both government and society. The problem of sustainable irrigation management is that it is neither state nor market based; it is somewhere in between, which requires decision-making by all stakeholders at different levels (Lam, 2006b). The development of adequate social capital, such as inclusive state–society cooperation, helps to realise the development potentials in the various domains of collective action (Evans, 1995). Research on the East Asian model suggests that a synergy between farmers and irrigation managers can help to bring about good irrigation management performance (Lam, 1996) because farmers develop a sense of ownership or co-production management through their participation. It is clear that effective state intervention is required to nurture effective and diverse institutions according to their respective contexts and the nature of their infrastructure.

83

3

CHAPTER THREE: POST-INDEPENDENCE AFRICAN ECONOMIES: AN