Growth with pollution: unsustainable development in Taiwan and its consequences

During the 1980s, economic development in Taiwan received much attention in development studies. The “Taiwan miracle” has made Taiwan rich and famous. This article examines an often ignored aspect of development—environmental quality—and argues that Taiwan has achieved “growth with pollution” that will not increase but decrease the welfare of the people in the long run. The root cause of Taiwan's environmental degradation rests on the obsession with fast economic growth at any cost by the powerful coalition between the ruling Kuomington and the capitalists. The article argues that the case of Taiwan is far from being a “model” for developing countries. Taiwan's experience of “growth with pollution,” on the contrary, should stand as a warning to other developing countries pursuing similar development paths. Chun-Chieh Chi received his B.A. in sociology from Tunghai University in Taiwan, and his M.A. and Ph.D. in sociology from State University of New York at Buffalo. He is assistant professor of sociology at the University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK 74104. His research interests include sustainable development in Taiwan and Kenya, indigenous people and the environment, and women and the environment in developing countries.     

Luring,learning, and lobbying: The limits to capital mobility in the Dominican Republic

While Third World governments are advised and expected to establish their export processing zones (EPZs) near low-cost labor markets and modern transportation centers, the Dominican Republic’s oldest and most successful zones are located in the country’s relatively remote, high-cost interior. In this article I use qualitative and quantitative data: first, to explain the seemingly irrational EPZ location decision; second, to account for the seemingly paradoxical success of the country’s relatively high-cost secondary city EPZs; and third, to explore the puzzle’s implications for debates on industrial location, globalization, and the political economy of development policy. Andrew Schrank is an assistant professor of sociology at Yale University. He is currently completing a book on export diversification in the Dominican Republic. He is also collaborating on projects on the software industry in Mexico and a study of intellectual property rights in cross-national perspective. I would like to thank Stephen Bunker, Lawrence King, Marcus Kurtz, Denis O’Hearn, Kenneth Shadlen, members of the University of Chicago’s “Organizations and State-Building” workshop, participants in the Social Science Research Council’s “Rethinking Social Science Research on the Developing World” conference, and SCID’s reviewers for helpful comments. The research was undertaken with the assistance of the Institute of International Education.     

Generative sectors and the new historical materialism: Economic ascent and the cumulatively sequential restructuring of the world economy

The causes and consequences of inequality between national economies, the ascent to dominance within the world hierarchy of economies, and the dynamics driving the material intensification and spatial expansion of production and trade in the world economy have long been core questions in a wide range of fields concerned with economic change and development and with international relations. In this article, we propose that one of the fundamental mechanisms driving all three of these processes for at least the last 500 years has been a dynamic tension, or contradiction, between the economies of scale that reduce relative costs and drive national economic ascent to dominance in world production and trade, and the diseconomies of space that result from the increased consumption of raw materials that this expanded production entails. The four most rapid cases of economic ascent in the history of the world economy—Holland, Great Britain, the United States, and Japan—resolved this contradiction in similar ways that drove the ascent of these economies to the top of the system of global stratification. Stephen G. Bunker is professor of sociology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. His research examines how the world economy is driven by raw materials and transport, including the role of the Brazilian Amazon as a raw-materials periphery and the political economy and ecology of Japanese raw-materials access strategies. Paul S. Ciccantell is associate professor of sociology at Western Michigan University. His research examines the socioeconomic and environmental impact of raw-materials extraction in Brazil, Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela; the organizational sociology of raw-materials and transport industries; the impacts of the North American Free Trade Agreement; and the political economy and ecology of Japanese raw-materials access strategies.     

The New Commons vs. The Second Enclosure Movement: Comments on an Emerging Agenda for Development Research

The relationship between property rights and development has always been a central concern for both theorists and policy makers. The growing role of information and communications technology in the economies of both North and South intensifies the salience of this issue. This commentary extends the discussion of the two visions of property rights that are introduced by Weber and Bussell (2005). In one, property rights are restructured along the lines pioneered by the open-source software community to create a “new commons” of productive tools; in the other, Northern corporations successfully defend their politically protected monopoly rights over intangible assets and even extend them through a “second enclosure movement” to an ever larger set of ideas, information, and images. Currently, the second enclosure movement remains dominant, but which of these visions is likely to predominate in the longer run depends on the interests and potential power of key actors and on the possibilities for alliances among them—not just Northern corporations, but Southern states and private entrepreneurs, as well. Peter Evans is professor of sociology and Marjorie Meyer Eliaser Chair of International Studies at the University of California, Berkeley. His research has focused on the comparative political economy of developing countries, particularly industrialization and the role of the state, as exemplified byEmbedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformation (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995). He has also worked urban environmental issues, producing the edited volumeLivable Cities: Urban Struggles for Livelihood and Sustainability (University of California Press, 2002). His current interest in the politics of globalization is reflected in his chapter, “Counter-hegemonic Globalization: Transnational Social Movements in the Contemporary Global Political Economy,” forthcoming in theHandbook of Political Sociology (Cambridge University Press).     

The institutional logic of small-firm economies in Italy and Taiwan

This article compares the small-firm economies of Taiwan and Italy, utilizing an institutional oganizational approach in the analysis of economic structures. It is divided into three sections. First, there is a presention of the main features of the Italian and the Taiwanese economies to draw out their distinctive similarities. The second part identifies a set of institutional factors which help us understand the similarities observed in the two economies, and classifies them along two analytical headings: individual values and social structure. The third section explores the significance of the author's crossnational comparison of small-firm economies for improving the status of an institutional theory of economic structures. By, emphasizing the role of institutional factors and the social embeddedness of economic activities in Italy and Taiwan, the article provides a corrective to the unilateral emphasis on an East versus West model of economic action and shows the obvious inadequacies of restrictively cultural, political, or economic interpretations of national economies. Marco, Orrù is assistant professor of sociology at the University of South Florida. Recent publications include “Patterns of Inter-Firm Control in Japanese Business” (Organization Studies, December 1989, 549–74) and “Organizational Isomorphism in East Asia” inThe New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis P. Dimaggio and W. Powell, eds., (University of Chicago Press, 1991). Dr. Orrù's research has also appeared inThe British Journal of Sociology, Sociological Forum, Japan'sFinancial Economic Review, and other professional journals. He is currently working on a monograph,Patterns of Asian Capitalism, co-authored with Gary G. Hamilton and Nicole Woolsey Biggart.     

Cultural and economic prerequisites of democracy: Reassessing recent evidence

The purpose of this article is to reassess two influential theories of democratic development: the theory of democratic culture and the theory of economic development. The leading predecessors in each domain—Ronald Inglehart and Adam Przeworski—are the prime targets of analysis. We take issue with recent evidence presented by these authors on three grounds: the evidence (1) confuses “basic” criteria of democracy with possible “quality” criteria (Inglehart); (2) conceptualizes democracy in dichotomous rather than continuous terms (Przeworski); and (3) fails to account for endogeneity and contingent effects (Inglehart). In correcting for these shortcomings, we present striking results. In the case of democratic culture, the theory lacks support; neither overt support for democracy nor “self-expression values” affect democratic development. In the case of economic development, earlier findings must be refined. Although the largest impact of modernization is found among more democratized countries, we also find an effect among “semi-democracies.” Axel Hadenius is professor of political science at Uppsala University in Sweden. He is the author ofDemocracy and Development (Cambridge University Press, 1992) andInstitutions and Democratic Citizenship (Oxford University Press, 2001). Jan Teorell is associated professor of political science at Uppsala University. His articles on intra-party democracy, social capital, and political participation appear in international journals.     

Urban growth in India: Demographic and sociocultural prospects

This paper explores some of the complexities of India’s urban growth since its first post-Independence census of 1951. Two levels of analysis are pursued as they affect one another: numerical or demographic changes, on one hand, and changes in living conditions, or sociocultural trends, on the other. The general conclusion of the study is that a process of “erosion” of traditional society is occurring, but it is occurring slowly— as a population more than twice the size of the entire United States continues to live in the countryside (and to increase at about twice the U.S. growth rate). Moreover, the sociocultural change is occurring in a non-linear fashion, as much that is traditional endures along side of the modern—rather than being replaced or obliterated by it. Finally, while the growth is occurring in cities of all sizes, the intermediate, regional capitals like Hyderabad and ahmedabad—rather than the largest cities such as Bombay or Calcutta—are experiencing the most rapid growth. Jay Weinstein is a professor of sociology and faculty research fellow at Eastern Michigan University. He has also taught at the University of Iowa (1972–77) and Georgia Institute of Technology (1977–86). He has been involved in comparative development studies for over twenty years, beginning with his Ph.D. fieldwork in India in 1971. His current interests include Canadian Studies and Eastern Europe. He visited Bulgaria in February–March, 1991 as a member of a U.S. Information Agency Citizen Exchange Project.     

From Brain Drain to Brain Circulation: Transnational Communities and Regional Upgrading in India and China

By 2000, over one-third of Silicon Valley’s high-skilled workers were foreign-born, and overwhelmingly from Asia. These U.S.-educated engineers are transforming developmental opportunities for formerly peripheral regions as they build professional and business connections to their home countries. In a process more akin to “brain circulation” than “brain drain,” these engineers and entrepreneurs, aided by the lowered transaction costs associated with digitization, are transferring technical and institutional know-how between distant regional economies faster and more flexibly than most large corporations. This article examines how Chinese- and Indian-born engineers are accelerating the development of the information technology industries in their home countries—initially by tapping the low-cost skill in their home countries, and over time by contributing to highly localized processes of entrepreneurial experimentation and upgrading, while maintain close ties to the technology and markets in Silicon Valley. However, these successful models also raise several questions about the broader relevance of brain circulation outside of several key countries, and regions of those countries, within the global South. AnnaLee Saxenian is dean and professor at the School of Information Management and Systems and professor in the Department of City and Regional Planning at the University of California, Berkeley. She is currently exploring how immigrant engineers and scientists are transferring technology entrepreneurship to regions in Asia.     

Postcommunist divergence: A comparative analysis of the transition to capitalism in Poland and Russia

This article critiques the dominant neoliberal transition paradigm. The implementation of neoliberal reforms in the postcommunist world has fostered the creation of two different types of capitalism. Rather than enabling a transition to Western European-style capitalism, these reforms have produced divergence within the postcommunist world. This article uses comparative firm-level case studies from Russia and Poland to construct a “neoclassical” sociological alternative to neoliberal theory that can explain this divergence. In this account, intra-dominant class structure (the pattern of alliances between the Party bureaucracy, the technocracy, and humanistic intellectuals) at the time of the transition produces different “paths to capitalism,” or policy regimes, which, in turn, have different effects on the ability of firms to restructure. In Russia, this creates a system of “patrimonial capitalism” that will produce long-term economic stagnation. In Poland, a variety of modern rational capitalism emerges. This latter system is distinguished by its very high levels of dependence on capital imports in comparison to the advanced capitalist countries. As a result, this type of economy will be quite vulnerable to economic shocks. Lawrence King is an assistant professor of sociology at Yale University. His book includeThe Basic Features of Postcommunist Capitalism in Eastern Europe (2001) andAssessing New Class Theory (with Ivan Szelenyi, forthcoming). He is currently working on a book entitledPostcommunist Capitalisms. I am grateful for a Yale Junior Faculty Research Fellowship, and the support of the Yale Center for Comparative Research, the Social Science Research Fund at Yale, and the Yale Center for International and Area Studies. I would also like to thank Aleksandra Sznajder and Evgenia Gvozdeva for their invaluable research assistance, and Ivan Szelenyi, Andrew Schrank, Hannah Brueckner, Alison Pollet, and the editors and anonymous reviewers atStudies in Comparative International Development for their comments and suggestions.     

Communist Legacies, Postcommunist Transformations, and the Fate of Organized Labor in Russia and China

This study aims to generate fresh hypotheses concerning emergent variations in labor politics across postcomunist settings. Although labor may be weak throughout the postcommunist world, a historical comparison of labor politics in Russia and China reveals consequential differences in the extent and sources of union weakness. Taking these differences seriously, the study asks why organized labor in Russia—in spite of a steeper decline in union membership, greater fragmentation, and a conspicuously low level of militancy—wasrelatively more effective in advancing working-class interests during economic liberalization than the growing, organizationally unified trade union apparatus in China. The comparisons suggest that some constraints on organized labor are more malleable than others, allowing for openins where labor can affect outcomes in ways that surprise, if not scare, state and business. Specifically, key differences in historical legacies and in the pace and ynamics of institutional transformation have conferred upon Russian unions key organizational, material, and symbolic resources that Chinese unions do not possess to the same degree. These differences reflect mechanisms capable of generating increasingly divergent prospects for organized labor mobilization over long-time horizons. Calvin Chen is Luce Assistant Professor of Politics at Mount Holyoke College. His research interests include the industrialization of the Chinese countryside, the political economy of East Asia, and labor politics in postsocialist countries. He is presently working on a book on the role of social ties and networks of trust in China’s township and village enterprises. Rudra Sil is associate professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania. His research interests include the political economy of development, comparative labor relations, postcommunist transitions, Russian and Asian studies, and the history and philosophy of social science. He is author ofManaging “Modernity”: Work, Community, and Authority in Late-Industrializing Japan and Russia (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2002) and coeditor ofThe Politics of Labor in a Global Age (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001). He is presently working on a book comparing the evolution of labor politics across postcommunist countries. We gratefully acknowledge helpful comments and suggestions offered by Hilary Appel, Harley Balzer, Ruth Collier, Eileen Doherty, Todor Enev, Tulia Falleti, David Ost, Lü Xiaobo, and three anonymous reviewers on drafts of this article.     

Outside the den of dragons: The Philippines and the NICs of Asia

The Phillippines is compared with Taiwan and South Korea on six factors, deemed in the literature to account for the economic success of the “little dragons” of Asia: colonial history, ties to the United States, class structures, state autonomy and efficacy, timing of industrialization, and culture. The theoretical implications of the comparative analysis in the study of development and underdevelopment in the Third World are considered, and the Marcos regime and the Aquino administration are evaluated in the light of the comparative analysis M.D. Litonjua is an assistant professor of sociology at the College of Mount St. Joseph in Cincinnati, Ohio. He is originally from the Philippines where he taught at the Ateneo de Manila University. He holds a Ph.D. in sociology from Brown University. His current interests include religion and social change, capitalism and democracy in Third World countries.     

The developmental state: Israel, South Korea, and Taiwan compared

The growth performances of the Israeli economy during the years 1948–1973 were excellent by any criteria, and are comparable to the “miraculous” performances of South Korea and Taiwan. Excellent economic performances in the three countries were accompanied by the presence of an autonomous and an interventionist state as well as by strategies of governed development (in the spheres of finance, investment, and international trade). The comparison is used, to shed new light on the Israeli political economy as well as on the replicability of the developmental state model across regions, cultures, and political regimes. First, by comparing the three countries and pointing to the similarities in the role and autonomy of the state, the article offers a different interpretation of the Israeli economy from that offered by both neoclassical and neomarxist interpretations of the Israeli political economy. Second, successful cases of develoment are rare in our world; this should make the study of the Israeli political economy a valuable case-study for the proponents of the developmental state model. By pointing out the similarities in the growth performances and the developmental strategies of Israel, Taiwan, and South Korea, as well as the dissimilarities in their political regimes, their cultural traditions, and their regional settings, this article further strengthens the arguments in favor of state-guided economic development in developing countries. David Levi-Faur is a lecturer of comparative public policy and business and politics at the University of Haifa. He was a visiting scholar at the L.S.E., University of California, Berkeley, the University of Utrecht, and the University of Amsterdam.     

Foreign investiment in socialist Cuba: Significance and prospects

In February 1982, Cuba’s Council of State approved legislation that authorized some forms of foreign investment in the island. The legislation was largely ignored by foreign business that for nearly a decade showed scant interest in investing in Cuba. However, in the 1990s, foreign investiment in socialist Cuba has increased rapidly. The first part of the article gauges the economic significance of foreign investment in the context of the financial needs of the country. The second part touches on a number of issues that have a bearing on the further growth of foreign investment in Cuba. The article concludes with some general observations on the impact of foreign investment on the Cuban economy and prospects for the future. Jorge F. Pérez-López is an international economist with the Bureau of International Labor Affairs, U.S. Department of Labor. His writings on international economics issues— especially on the Cuban economy—have appeared in professional journals and several edited volumes. He is the author ofThe Economics of Cuban Sugar (University of Pittsburgh Press, 1991),The Cuban Second Economy: From Behind the Scenes to Center Stage (Transaction Publishers, 1995), and editor and contributor ofCuba at a Crossroads (University Press of Florida, 1994). He received his Ph.D. in Economics from the State University of New York at Albany. The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.     

The public costs of private blessings: Fundamentals of the economic role of government

The main thrust of this overview is to demonstrate how the shift of government authority over time—from a defense of the realm against foreign intruders to an adjudication of conflicting citizen claims—has created a new set of problems and challenges for the modern state in search of development. It is argued that the power of the state expands as traditional forms of economic rivalries and class claims weaken, and as recourse to legal decision-making becomes widely accepted by all social and economic sectors. Government has proven better able to satisfy existing claims than at initiating new forms of social relations. Experiences in a variety of economic structures thus argue for a continued interplay of public and private, federal and personal claims. Irving Louis Horowitz is Hannah Arendt Distinguished Professor of Sociology and Political Science at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08933. Among his major works on development theory and practice areThree Worlds of Development: The Theory and Practice of International Stratification (Oxford University Press, 1965, 1972), andBeyond Empire and Revolution: Militarization and Modernization in the Third World (Oxford University Press, 1982). He was founding editor ofStudies in Comparative International Development.     

Accumulation by Dispossession and Its Limits: The Southern Africa Paradigm Revisited

The dispossession of agricultural producers from the land has long been considered a condition of successful capitalist development. The main contention of this paper is that such dispossession has in fact become the source of major developmental handicaps for at least some and possibly many countries of the global South. We develop our argument by focusing on the South(ern) African experience as a paradigmatic outlier case of accumulation by dispossession—that is, as one of its extreme instances capable of highlighting in almost ideo-typical fashion its nature and limits. After reconstructing interpretations of capitalist development in Southern Africa that in the early 1970s established the region as a paradigm of accumulation by dispossession, we discuss how useful these interpretations are for understanding the more recent developmental trajectory of South Africa. We then suggest ways in which these interpretations from the 1970s should be reformulated in light of subsequent developments. We conclude by briefly examining the theoretical and policy implications of the analysis.     

Changing development models in small economies: The case of Jamaica from the 1950s to the 1990s

By examining in detail the successes and failures of different development models in one developing country over a four-decade period, this article sketches a development model for small economies in the 1990s as an alternative to the neoliberal model pushed by the International Monetary Fund. It reviews the experience of Jamaica with various development models from the 1950s to the 1990s, with special attention focused on the experience of the Seaga government of the 1980s. It also draws lessons from the successful development experience of small European countries and of the East Asian Newly Industrialized countries. In normative terms, the alternative development model attempts to combine growth with equity and democracy. In analytical terms, it takes account of the constellation of domestic forces and appropriate political strategies, as well as of international economic and political conditions. The main features are a strong role for the state in economic interactions with transnational corporations, in identification of export markets and promotion of export production, in selective protection of domestic industry with an export potential, in promotion of agriculture linked to industrial development, in improvement of human resources and promotion of regional economic integration. Within these parameters, a crucial role is assigned to the domestic private sector and a complementary one to foreign investment. Distribution is to be addressed primarily through distribution of productive assets and access to health care and education. Evelyne Huber is professor of political science at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. She is a coauthor ofDemocratic Socialism in Jamaica andCapitalist Development and Democracy. She is currently involved in research on the changing role of the state in Latin America and on comparative social policy. John D. Stephens is professor of political science and sociology at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. He is a coauthor ofDemocratic Socialism in Jamaica andCapitalist Development and Democracy. His current research focuses on options for social democracy and comparative social policy.     

Dominance and change in the global computer industry: Military, bureaucratic, and network state developmentalisms

This article examines the conditions under which firms in different economies were able to emerge as significant actors in the global computer industry during different time periods. To achieve this, the article divides into three periods the history of the industry in terms of the three major policy regimes that have supported the dominant firms and regions. It argues that these policy regimes can be thought of as state developmentalisms that take significantly different forms across the history of the industry. U.S. firms’ dominance over their European counterparts in the 1950s and 1960s was underpinned by a system of “military developmentalism” where military agencies funded research, provided a market and developed infrastructure, but also demanded high quality products. The “Asian Tigers”—Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, and South Korea—in the 1970s and 1980s were able to eclipse their Latin American and Indian rivals due in large part to the significant advantages offered by a highly effective system of “bureaucratic developmentalism,” where bureaucratic elites in key state agencies and leading business groups negotiated supports for export performance. The 1990s saw the emergence of a system of “network developmentalism” where countries such as Ireland and Israel were able to emerge as new nodes in the computer industry by careful economic and political negotiation of relations to the United States, reestablished at the center of the industry, and by more decentralized forms of provision of state support for high-tech development. Finally, the conditions under which new regimes can emerge are a consequence of the unanticipated global consequences of previous regimes. While state developmentalisms have been shaped by existing global regimes, they have promoted further and different rounds of industry globalization. Seán ó Riain is professor of sociology at the National University of Ireland, Maynooth. His research has been primarily on the political economy of high-tech growth in Ireland and elsewhere, and on work and class politics among software developers. He is the author ofThe Politics of High Tech Growth: Developmental Network, States in the Global Economy (Cambridge, 2004).     

Trade and development policies in Colombia: Export promotion and outward orientation, 1967–1992

As developing democracies implement programs of economic adjustment and trade liberalization, we need to examine the relationship between the state and society in the making of foreign economic policies. This article examines trade and development policies in Colombia, one of Latin America's more institutionalized democracies. Colombia was one of the first countries in Latin America to begin a major reorientation away from full dependence on ISI as a strategy of development. The research shows that domestic political institutions and actors have had a decisive impact on the character and direction of foreign economic policies. The study also illustrates how state capacity for economic management is enhanced by bureaucratic insulation and institutional reform. Carlos E. Juárez is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Political Science at the University of California, Los Angeles. His research focuses on the politics of trade liberalization in Latin America, government-business relations in developing democracies, and comparative political economy. He was a visiting researcher and lecturer at theUniversidad de los Andes in Bogotá, Colombia from 1991–1992. For 1993–1994 he will be a visiting research fellow with the Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies at the University of California, San Diego.