From Situations of Dependency to Globalized Social Democracy

President Cardoso's recent assessment of the prospects for “globalized social democracy” raises, once again, the question of what space for agency exists within the global political economy for actors in the South, which was central to the analysis Cardoso and Faletto presented in Dependency and Development 40 years ago. Dependency and Development's “historical–structural” approach balanced belief in the possibility of political agency with a keen appreciation of structural constraint. Cardoso's current exploration of global possibilities carries forward both tradition of the historical–structural method, arguing that social democracy is an option in the South and that the globalized social democrats in the South will play a growing role in shaping global political institutions. He does not explore the possibility that social democrats in the South may need to play a role in shaping global economic rules. This paper argues that reconstructing global market rules is crucial to the long-run success of “globalized social democracies” in the South and that such reconstruction, however difficult, lies within the realm of the historically viable.     

Bonanza and dependency in Botswana

This article compares the recent history of economic growth in Botswana with Becker’s model of “bonanza development.” While the Becker model generally applies to Botswana, the case also manifests some areas of disagreement. “Bonanza development” in Botswana is characterized by the continuation of dependency and related social inequalities. Perhaps the Botswana experience is described best as “dependent bonanza development.” Thomas Meisenhelder is a professor of sociology at California State University in San bernardino, California 92407. He spent 1986–1987 as a Fulbright Lecturer in the department of sociology at the University of Botswana (Gaborone) and lived in Harare Zimbabwe during 1992. He has recently published inMonthly Review andNature, Society and Thought. His current research includes a study of the adoption of a structural adjustment program in Zimbabwe and an interpretation of the references to Africa in the writings of Marx and Engels.     

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).     

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.     

Culture,Sustainability, and Medicine in the Twenty-first Century. Re-grounding the Focus of Medicine Amidst the Current “Global Systemic Shift” and the Forces of the Market: Elements for a Contemporary Social Philosophy of Medicine

This article analyzes the role and the status of medicine within the “post-modern” culture(s) of the West. As we know, culture is a major factor that influences the perception, the interpretation, and the expectations toward medicine, medical institutions, medical politics, and the persons involved with them. When culture changes, the social construct called “medicine” changes. Today, the Western condition of “post-modernity” finds itself in a process of rapid change due to the “global systemic shift” that is manifesting since a couple of years within all four main systemic logics and discoursive patterns of Western societies: in culture, religion, politics, and economics. In this situation, the article tries to elaborate on crucial questions about how a contemporary social philosophy of medicine can be delineated within the current “global systemic shift” and what some consequences and perspectives could be. It pleas for an integrative philosophy of medicine which has to strive to re-integrate the “(de) constructivist” patterns of “nominalistic” post-modern thought (dedicated primarily to freedom and equality) with the “idealistic” patterns of “realistic” neo-humanism (dedicated primarily to the “essence” of human dignity and the possibility of intersubjective morality). Only the institution of a balanced “subjective-objective” paradigm can ensure medicine its appropriate place, role, and status within our rapidly changing society.     

Traditional rulers and development administration: Chieftaincy in Niger,Nigeria, and Vanuatu

Although the paramountcy of chiefs was undone by colonial rule, traditional rulers have served as important adjuncts in the administration of post-colonial government in both Africa and Oceania. This paper examines the evolution of the chieftaincy, particularly as an agent of administration, in West Africa (Niger and Nigeria) and Melanesia (Vanuatu). Although French and British colonial regimes had distinctive policies regarding the use of “their” chiefs, post-colonial Nigérien, Nigerian, and ni-Vanuatu governments have all come to rely on traditional rulers to aid in development activities. The degree of autonomy retained by traditional rulers varies, however: it is highest in Vanuatu, lowest in Niger. Differing conceptions and uses of tradition and “custom” help explain these variations. Five modern functions of traditional rulers are identified as contributing to development administration: 1) linkage or “brokering” between grassroots and capital; 2) extension of national identity through the conferral of traditional titles; 3) low-level conflict resolution and judicial gate-keeping; 4) ombudsmanship; and 5) institutional safety-valve for overloaded and subapportioned bureaucracies. Creating educated chieftaincies significantly enhances the effectiveness of traditional rulers' contributions to development and administration. William F.S. Miles is chair of the Development Administration Concentration (Public Administration Program) and associate professor of political science at Northeastern University in Boston. Some of his recent articles have appeared inAfrican Studies Review, theAmerican Political Science Review, andComparative Politics. Professor Miles's two forthcoming books areImperial Burdens: Countercolonialism in Former French India (Lynne Rienner Publishers) andHausaland Divided: Colonialism and Independence in Nigeria and Niger (Cornell University Press). Please address correspondence     

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.     

Compressed Development

In this paper we argue that the path of economic development for would-be developers has changed fundamentally since the 1980s. Focusing on East Asia, and taking a broad perspective that spans the economic and social dimensions of development, we contend that the path charted by the “late development” model has become all but impassible. The path is now better conceived as one of “compressed development.” Key differences are 1) the extent and consequences of compression; 2) the primary mode of engagement with the world economy—via global value chains; and 3) the interaction of these. Compressed development forces states to address a number of simultaneous challenges, resulting in “policy stretch.” We identify key features of an “adaptive state” suited to navigating the path of compressed development.     

Incompetence, Noise, and Fear in Central-Local Relations in China

In this article, I analyze how the structure of the Chinese state affects the probability that local cadres will comply with the directives of the center. Because the Chinese state consists of a five-level hierarchy of dyadic principal-agent relationships, the existence of even moderate levels of routine incompetence and noise ensures that compliance will be less than perfect due to simple error. Moreover, because the center cannot perfectly differentiate between simple incompetence and willful disobedience, the structure of the state enables cadres to engage in strategic disobedience. I thus conclude that the complexity of the linkages between center and locality are a major factor in the observed persistence of corruption and institutional malfeasance. Andrew Wedeman is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln. His research focuses on the political economy of reform in China and specifically on the effects of corruption on development, both in China and elsewhere in the developing world. Recent publications include: “Budgets, Extra-Budgets, and Small Treasuries: The Utility of Illegal Monies”,Journal of Contemporary China; “Agency and Fiscal Dependence in Central-Provincial Relations in China”,Journal of Contemporay China; “Stealing from the Farmers: Institutional Corruption and the 1992 IOU Crisis”.China Quarterly and “Looters, Rent-Scrappers, and Dividend-Collectors: Corruption and Growth in Zaire, South Korea, and the Philippines”,The Journal of Developing Areas.     

Industrial convergence,globalization, and the persistence of the North-South divide

This article demonstrates empirically that widespread convergence in the degree of industrialization between former First and Third World countries over the past four decades hasnot been associated with convergence in the levels of income enjoyed on average by the residents of these two groups of countries. Our findings contradict the widely made claim that the significance of the North-South divide is diminishing. This contention is based on a false identification of “industrialization” with “development” and “industrialized” with “wealthy”. Elaborating from elements of Joseph Schumpeter’s theory of innovation, Raymond Vernon’s product cycle model, and Pierre Bourdieu’s concept ofillusio, the article offers an explanation for the persistence of the North-South income divide, despite rapid Third World industrialization and despite dramatic changes in the world political-ideological context for development (that is, the shift around 1980 from the “development” project to the “globalization” project or “Washington Consensus”). While emphasizing the long-term stability of the Northern-dominated hierarchy of wealth, the article concludes by pointing to several contemporary processes that may destabilize not only the “globalization project”, but also the global hierarchy of wealth that has characterized historical capitalism. Giovanni Arrighi is professor of sociology at The Johns Hopkins University. His latest books areThe Long Twentieth Century: Money, Power and the Origins of Our Times (1994) and (with Beverly J. Silver et al.)Chaos and Governance in the Modern World System (1999). Beverly J. Silver is professor of sociology at The Johns Hopkins University. She is the author ofForces of Labor: Workers’ Movements and Globalization Since 1870 (2003) and co-author (with Giovanni Arrighi et al.) ofChaos and Governance in the Modern World System (1999). Benjamin D. Brewer is a graduate student in the Department of Sociology at The Johns Hopkins University. His dissertation is a commodity chains analysis of the professional-sport economy. He has also published articles on sport and globalization. Previous versions of this paper were presented at the American Sociological Association Meeting, Anaheim, August 2001; Lingnan University, Hong Kong, May 2001; the Graduate School, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Beijing, May 2001; the Annual Convention of the International Studies Association, Chicago, February 2001; the Center for International Studies, University of Southern California, November 2000; the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington D.C., September 2000; the Universidad Nacional Pedro Henriquez Urena, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, March 2000; and at the Conference on Ethics and Globalization, Yale University, April 2000. We benefited greatly from the comments of Hayward Alker, Charles Beitz, Peter Evans, Walter Goldfrank, Michael Mann, David Smith, Ann Tickner, and two anonymous reviewers forSCID.     

Development as institutional change: The pitfalls of monocropping and the potentials of deliberation

Development theory has moved from a single-minded focus on capital accumulation toward a more complex understanding of the institutions that make development possible. Yet, instead of expanding the range of institutional strategies explored, the most prominent policy consequence of this “institutional turn” has been the rise of “institutional monocropping”: the imposition of blueprints based on idealized versions of Anglo-American institutions, the applicability of which is presumed to transcend national circumstances and cultures. The disappointing results of monocropping suggest taking the institutional turn in a direction that would increase, rather than diminish, local input and experimentation. The examples of Porto Alegre, Brazil, and Kerala, India, reinforce Amartya Sen’s idea that “public discussion and exchange” should be at the heart of any trajectory of institutional change, and flag potential gains from strategies of “deliberative development” which rely on popular deliberation to set goals and allocate collective goods. Peter Evans teaches in the Sociology Department at the University of California, Berkeley, where he holds the Marjorie Meyer Eliaser Chair of International Studies. He is currently exploring the role of labor as a transnational social movement. His earlier research has focused on the role of the state in industrial development, an interest reflected in his bookEmbedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformation (Princeton University Press 1995). He is also interested in urban environmental issues, as indicated by the recent edited volume,Livable Cities: Urban Struggles for Livelihood and Sustainability (University of California Press 2002). I would like to thank the editors, Atul Kohli, Dani Rodrik, and Anne Wetlerberg for their valuable comments and suggestions. Remaining analytical and empirical errors are, of course, my own. For an earlier effort (in Portugese) to make this argument, see Evans 2003.     

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.     

Will Information Technology Reshape the North-South Asymmetry of Power in the Global Political Economy?

Digital technologies are sufficiently disruptive to current ways of doing things to call into question assumptions about the “inevitability” or “natural state” of many economic processes and organizational principles. In particular, the impact of digital technologies on our conceptions of property rights has potentially dramatic implications for the North-South divide and the distribution of power in the global political economy. Drawing on recent experiences with open-source property rights regimes, we present two scenarios, the “imperialism of property rights” and the “shared global digital infrastructure,” to highlight how debates over property-rights could influence the development of the global digital infrastructure and, in turn, contribute to significantly different outcomes in global economic power. Steve Weber is director of, the Institute of International Studies and professor of political science at the University of California, Berkeley. His most recent book,The Success of Open Source, was published in April 2004 by Harvard University Press. Jennifer Bussell is a doctoral candidate in political science at the University of California, Berkeley. Her research is on the political determinants of information and communication technology access in developing countries.     

The Day the Sun Rises in the West—Ethnography of a Peace Process

Both politicians and academic researchers have focused on the Oslo peace agreements, generally emphasizing the “New Middle East” and “Transnationalism.” Less attention has been paid to social and economic changes affected by the process of peace-making. This paper examines the reality that was created from below and asks what the peace process meant to migrant Palestinian workers in Israel. Three years of ethnography challenge accepted theories of borders and borderland in the case of Israel and Palestine by asking what can be learned about the cultural identity of people from the ways they cross, understand, and move between geopolitical and cultural boundaries. In the last years of the Oslo Agreements, it became clear to the workers that “peace” meant preserving national borders: it involved a policy of separation, whereas their very livelihood depended on their ability to move between Tel Aviv and the Gaza Strip. Torn between their national identity and their class–cultural identity, they formulated a demand for a dialectical reorganization: a state without borders. This demand stood in opposition to the national aspirations of Israel and the Palestinian state-in-being alike.

Civil society and democracy in the third world: Ambiguities and historical possibilities

The terminology of “civil society” has gained currency in recent discussions of democratic movements around the globe. Although less grandiose in its implications than claims about the “end of history,” this terminology does suggest a certain universality in human experience. We argue that this claim of universality is warranted, but also problematic. We establish the relevance of our argument in reference to the literatures in African and Indian studies. We note first that the common employments of the concept ignore the theoretical and historical specificity of civil society: civil society is used to label any group or movement opposed to the state, regardless of its intent or character, or used so generically that it is indistinguishable from the term “society.” Instead, we argue that civil society is a sphere of social life, involving a stabilization of a system of rights, constituting human beings as individuals, both as citizens in relation to the state and as legal persons in the economy and the sphere of private association. Thus, we link the wide resonance of the concept to its embeddedness in the logic of liberal capitalist society and the capitalist global division of labor. This conception allows us to see that, although the emergence of a sphere of civil society involves at least minimal democranization and is supportive of struggles for further democratization, the status of democracy is also made quite problematic by the tensions endemic to liberal capitalism and the processes of uneven development within international capitalism. Our usage also allows us to distinguish more clearly movements dedicated to the construction of civil society from those that may count actually as counter-civil society movements. David L. Blaney received his M.A. and Ph.D. at the Graduate School of International Studies, University of Denver. He is on leave from Hanover College, Hanover, Indiana as a visiting scholar for the 1993–94 academic year at The Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University, Washington, D.C. 20052. His main research interests include international political economy, culture and international relations theory, and democratic theory. Mustapha Kamal Pasha received his M.A. and Ph.D. at the Graduate School of International Studies, University of Denver. Currently, he is an assistant professor in the School of International Service, American University, Washington, D.C. 20016. His main research interests include international political economy, with particular regard to the Third World, and South Asian politics.     

Grassroots development where no grass grows: Small-scale development efforts on the peruvian coast

“Grassroots Development Where No Grass Grows: Small-Scale Development Efforts On The Peruvian Coast” reports site visits to several low-budget development projects: one in a squatter settlement on the outskirts of Lima, three in the agricultural area near Chiclayo, and one in the small provincial city of Ilo. The article describes a style of development assistance referred to as “accompaniment” and contrasts its requirements and potential benefits with those of more standard practices. In a philosophical vein, the article examines the advantages of emphasizing how development assistance is carried out as opposed to a focus on outcomes. It suggests that much is to be gained by supporting the small-scale activities of local Non-Governmental Development Organizations. Everything nced not be done at once, but something must be done… John Francis Kavanaugh, S.J. Richard L. Clinton is professor of political science at Oregon State University, where he teaches international relations, Americna foreign policy, alternative futures, and Latin American politics. His most recent book wasPoblación y desarrollo en el Perú (University of Lima, 1985).     

Ideas in Exile: Refugees from Nazi Germany and the Failure to Transplant Historical Sociology into the United States

This paper examines the reasons for the variable incidence and differing forms of historical sociology in several different historical periods, with a focus on Germany and the USA. It examines the flows of social scientists between those two countries due to forced exile from Nazi Germany, the American military occupation after 1945, and the voluntary exchange of scholars. The article focuses on extrascientific determinants such as political support for historical scholarship and macrosocial crisis or stability, as well as determinants that are more proximate or internal to the scientific field, such as the ongoing struggle between different epistemologies and the ability of historical sociology to sequester itself into a protected subfield. Historical sociology was one of the two poles of German sociology before 1933, whereas historical sociology had only a handful of proponents in the USA at that time. After 1933, the majority of German historical sociologists went into exile, most of them to the USA. For reasons explored here, the historical orientation of these exiled intellectuals had little resonance in the USA until the 1970s. Rather than being epistemologically “domesticated” in the 1980s, as Calhoun (1996) argued, historical sociology established itself as a subfield that is large enough to produce an internal polarization between an autonomous pole that relates mainly to history and other external allies and a heteronomous pole that mimics the protocols that dominate the sociological discipline as a whole, including a neopositivist epistemology of “covering laws” and at attraction to rational choice theory and quantitative methods, or qualitative simulacra of multivariate statistical analysis. In Germany, historical sociology failed to survive the Nazi period. Several leading Weimar-era historical sociologists stayed in Germany after 1933 but were unable to reestablish their prominence either because of their Nazi collaboration or because their work was dismissed by a new generation trained during the Nazi period for presentist, policy-oriented, “American-style”, or else trained in the USA after the war. The handful of exiled historical sociologists who returned to Germany after 1945 were marginalized, stopped working historically, or moved into other disciplines like Political Science. The explanation of these trends has to be multicausal and conjunctural. The influx of historical sociologists to the USA from Germany was unable to produce a historicization of the discipline until 1970s, when positivist hegemony was challenged for other reasons. The crisis of Fordism undermined the social regularities that had made positivist “constant conjunctions” seem plausible and at the same time rendered historicist ontologies more plausible. The neo-Marxist historical sociology gave rise to a neo-institutionalist counter-trend, which was itself eventually countered by a culturalist and conjuncturalist turn (Adams et al. 2005). In Germany, however, the society-wide destabilization of Fordism did not lead to a historicization of sociology. The extinguishing of the Weimar-era historical school in sociology meant that only high theory and “American-style” empirical social research remained as vital options. As a result, the crisis of Fordism and the ensuing social discontinuities and complexities did not give rise to historical sociology but were felt mainly within theory (e.g., the “risk society” theory of Ulrich Beck).     

Media Transitions in the Rear-View Mirror: Some Reflections

This essay explores the development of media systems in Central and Eastern Europe in the post-Soviet period, including the influence of social and political factors, outside media assistance, and the drive toward privatization and public service broadcasting, in an effort to understand what the experience teaches about democracy promotion, about the efficacy of various forms of media intervention, and about the utility of various forms of incentives and pressures in setting agendas and effecting political change. Despite differing historical, social, and political traditions and different forms of and reactions to media assistance efforts, factors, both exogenous (“Americanization” and “strategic communication”) and endogenous (“modernization,” secularization and commercialization), ultimately contributed to a homogenization of systems, rendering less relevant the particular distinctions among countries.     

The application of a reconnaissance strategy for identifying long-term problems for a Tanzanian farming systems project

Africa’s population is growing faster than its locally produced food supply. While some regions of the world wallow in production surpluses, neither the Green Revolution nor other production boosting strategies have sunk deep roots in Africa. As a result, there is an increasing food production shortfall and an ever larger dependence on outside food aid. In response, international development agencies are developing new strategies for tackling the seemingly intractable problems of African agriculture. One of these strategies is called the farming systems research and extension approach. This approach starts with the understanding that “African agriculture has probably been less affected by technology change in the past twenty years than agriculture on any other continent” (A.I.D., 1985). It continues by developing technical interventions which are advantageous within particular “recommendation domains” defined by both social and environmental conditions.     

Society, community, and economic development

Studies of economic development and economic history have long been concerned with the relationship between the transparent and supposedly anonymous forces of markets, rules, and bureaucracies, on the one hand, and membership in groups, such as local communities, associations, or networks on the other. Economists are quite divided about these latter forces: for some, they are necessary underpinnings for the market, providing trust and social capital which in turn reduce transaction costs and moral hazards and hence promote development; for most, they are seen as archaic, leading to nepotism, rent seeking, and institutional rigidity. Indeed, throughout the social sciences, there is an opposition between the roles assigned to what may be called the “societal” and the “communitarian” bases of social and economic development. But each position in this theoretical standoff underestimates the contributions of either society or community to economic development. This is because both society and community have potentially positive and negative effects; together, however, they can act as mutual checks and balances on their potentially negative effects, while reinforcing the positive contributions of each to economic efficiency. Different levels and types of society and community, in interaction, define complex contexts of choice and incentives in economic development, and allow us to see more clearly the basis of different institutional configurations in relationship to development. Michael Storper is professor of regional and international development in the School of Public Affairs at UCLA; professor of economic geography at the London School of Economics; and professor of economic sociology at the Institut d’Etudes Politiques (“Sciences Po”) in Paris. He received his Ph.D. from UC Berkeley.