The developmental phases of Russia, Kazakhstan, South Korea and Singapore - a comparative institutional analysis
5 Conclusion: Comparative Analysis of Case Studies
“There is hardly anything more stupid than talking about lessons of history. From history we only find out something about the historians, whether they have style or spirit etc. And about those, who take themselves too serious we have to laugh.”
In this final chapter conclusions are drawn as to how the four state capitalist countries performed under its respective structural and policy approach. It becomes clear that the developmental state with a huge degree of cohesiveness was superior to that of crony capitalism and even dual economy state capitalism. As main factors for diverging economic and social performances qualities of the bureaucracy as well as the degree of credibility of political leaders’ commitment to development emerge.
Keywords: Structure, Policy, Performances, Developmental State, Crony State Capitalism, Credibility of Commitment to Development, Quality of the Bureaucracy
Thus far, the entire approach to tackling the research question of what is state capitalism and how its profound performance differences can be accounted for was positive. Value judgments for instance were missing. By now this perspective will be shifted up to a certain extent. First of all, it is postulated that development with all its advantages and disadvantages is a goal that ought to be aimed for. In this regard as illustrated throughout this study of all state capitalist variants the developmental state has proven to be the most efficient and best performing in terms of economic development.
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.
Do you have any questions? Contact us.Or login to access all content.