A Ghost from the Past: The South African Developmental State of the 1940s

The Developmental State In recent years, with eyes alerted to the so-called Asian industrialisation model, there has emerged an important literature on the developmental state with Johnson, Amsden and Chang amongst the most frequently cited studies (Johnson, 1982; Amsden, 1989; Chang, 1994). Meredith Woo-Cumings provides a collection which stretches the subject to consider, for instance, dirigiste France and which also gives convenient definitional strength to the concept.(Woo-Cumings,1999) ‘The common thread linking these arguments is that a developmental state is not an imperious element lording it over society but a partner with the business sector in an historical compact of industrial transformation’. (Ibid.:4) A key defining element in the developmental state seems to be agency: the existence of a state formation that transcends or overrules the usual bureaucratic processes. Such agencies are capable of directing capital and defying the logic of market forces which may constrain structural transformations. While the state may tolerate large-scale corruption, favourites are channelled in such a way as to ensure economic results, not simply indulge in private rentseeking activities. Capitalists and top government officials, perhaps in the military, come together to form an elite, probably moulded through social associations, common educational background and personal ties. With reference to Brazil, Peter Evans proposes that members of such an elite ‘are embedded in a concrete set of social ties that binds the state to society and provides institutionalised channels for the continued negotiation and renegotiations of goals and policies.’ (Evans, 1995:12) They thus fulfil the requirement suggested by Coase’s much discussed theory: costs are reduced to a minimum where economic interactions are embedded in social forms. (Coase, 1937)