Peter Evan development state theory
Peter Evans ‘developmental state’ is based on a pertinent question that is “What kinds of State structure facilitate industrial transformation?” In order to find an answer to this question he conduced studies in four countries i.e. Zaire, South Korea, India and Brazil. Peter Evan’s contribution in the form of development state is an important contribution to development economics.
His development model talks of three archetypes of states. This is an illustrious work in the field of economic development. The three types of state as conceptualized by Evans are:
(i) The predatory state;
(ii) The intermediate state and
(iii) The developmental state.
Evans (1995) viewed that states are the result of complex historical forces and relationships, but they are also actors of agents potentially capable of shaping and influencing the ongoing process of historical evaluation.
Some of the important characteristics of predatory state are:
(i) The predatory state is very selfish in nature and the government employees try to maximize their wealth in minimum shortest possible time, by resorting to corruption mode;
(ii) The political system is also corrupt who are interested to amass wealth for their own and family benefits and hardly interested to serve society;
(iii) corruption is quite common in the predatory state where both the bureaucracy as well as political system indulge in corruption;
(iv) some dominant and privileged class are found to be positioned in the political as well as bureaucratic system and therefore characteristics of pre-capitalist societies are largely seen; and
(v) there are scarcity of trained bureaucrats and educated political leaders ; in other words, bureaucracy lacks capability.
The second category of archetypes states is called intermediate state. The intermediate states are largely managed by the bureaucrats. It shows a mixed result, it performs better in those sectors where the bureaucracy is efficient and discharge their duties and responsibilities effectively and efficiently. The sectors which lack efficient bureaucracy, their performance is low as compared to their counterpart having efficient bureaucrats. Corruption and inefficiency are observed in many places of the economic functioning. There is also scarcity of efficient bureaucrats. It is also seen that the public sector in a few developmental sector work in tandem with the private sector in order to perform its assigned duties and responsibilities. In some sectors development projects and programmes are efficiently implemented while in others it is being observed there is corruption leading to the ineffective implementation of developmental projects and programmes.
The third type of Evans archetype state is development state. One of the important characteristics of the development state is “embedded autonomy”.
According to Evan the development outcome of any country are largely conditioned by the various forms of state organization, the bureaucratic elements executing the developmental projects and programmes as well as the nature of its relationship with the society and social groups. The state along with the bureaucracy and with the private and social groups in continuous interactions performs various developmental projects and programmes. Evan argued that development outcome of any country are largely condition by the form of state organization, the bureaucratic elements as well as the nature of its ties with dominant societal interest.
Evan has outlined four roles for developmental state i.e.
(i) The Custodian role- to formulate and enforce rules and regulations;
(ii) The Demiurge roledirectly compete with the private investors, rather than simply playing a complementary role;
(iii) The Midwife role- acts as a facilitator by steering, assisting and inducing challenges in areas which are of higher priority; and
(iv) The Husbandry role- creating necessary environment for the successful emergence of new industries
According to Evans the developmental state will continue to play an important role in the socio-economic development as well as in promoting economic growth of the developing countries in the coming centuries. It is remarked that the developmental state steams from the amalgam “embedded autonomy” in which the government, private sector and social society organization work together to achieve various developmental goals of the developing countries.
The Key actors in the development state are the government, the private sector, and the bureaucracy and synergy of action between these three are crucial for economic growth and development in a developmental state.
According to Evans (1989) the efficiency of developmental state depends on a meritocratic bureaucracy with a strong sense of corporate identity and a dense set of institutionalized link to private élites. Further, in the developmental state, the state capacity in respect of the relationship between the state and private enterprise is critical in determining the developmental role of state.
The developmental state models as developed by Johnson and Evan are vital approaches to development of underdeveloped countries. The description of developmental state as given by these two exponents is based on the empirical analysis; therefore, it holds sufficient ground of reliability in its applicability to the ThirdWorld countries. In developmental state, State plays an important role in directing and associating the role of other actors such as private sector, NGOs and local self government institutions in the process of development through policies.