Disembedding Autonomy

Carroll, Toby; Jarvis, Darryl Stuart

doi:10.1017/9781316480502.002

Cited by 21 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 67 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The crisis of 1997–98 induced the ‘good governance reforms’ in the social and institutional domains, which also stimulated these nation states to reflect on their unique central-local, state-civil society relations. Their current mode of urban entrepreneurialism 3.0 therefore is preferably portrayed as post-developmental (Miao 2018b) or democratised-developmental (Cheng 2022) instead of neoliberal (Uttam 2019), which denotes the persistent role of the central state while acknowledging the rising influences and autonomies of market agencies, NGOs, local and regional governance bodies (Carroll and Jarvis 2017). It is also in urban entrepreneurialism 3.0 that East Asian states, led by nations such as China, Singapore, but also South Korea (Chen et al, 2019; Kim et al, 2020; Miao 2018a), not only join a plethora of international networks of urban policy exchange and experimentation (Davidson et al, 2019), but also take a lead in creating a broader and more diverse export market for their urban expertise and solutions (infrastructure, housing, health, environment, urban planning and design, data analytics).…”

Section: The State and Urban Entrepreneurialismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Urban entrepreneurialism 3.0 and the export of urban expertise: The case of South Korea’s international information and telecommunication technology program

Miao

Phelps

Kim

2023

Competition & Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several modes of urban entrepreneurialism, variously composed of central-local, state-market, state-civil society, and domestic-international relations, have been apparent since the 1970s. Drawing inspiration from East Asian developmental states, we argue that it is under the most recent mode of urban entrepreneurialism 3.0 that the urban sources of exports and national economic development have been most fully mobilised by states. We illustrate this export of urban expertise with the case of South Korea’s International Information and Telecommunication Technology Program (ITTP), offered by Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST), which trains future ICT and city leaders from developing countries. We trace the history and effects of the ITTP through original empirical research involving interviews and a survey of graduates from the program. The ITTP is revealing of state intrapreneurialism in the export of sector-specific urban expertise with effects on national brands, new markets and the formation of new institutions. The case of the ITTP is one among a variety of means by which East Asian states in particular have projected urban expertise internationally. It also points to these states’ struggle to coordinate institutions involved in, and generate consensus around, national models of urban expertise to be exported.

show abstract

Section: The State and Urban Entrepreneurialismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Urban entrepreneurialism 3.0 and the export of urban expertise: The case of South Korea’s international information and telecommunication technology program

Miao

Phelps

Kim

2023

Competition & Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The canonical work of Johnson facilitated developmental state studies outside of Japan. His influence among scholars on Asia led to their clinging on to Johnson’s Japan—the idea of Japan as painted by Johnson (for informative reviews, see Woo-Cummings, 1999; Haggard, 2018; Williams, 2015; Carroll and Jarvis, 2017). Beginning in the 1980s, developmental state studies proliferated influential analyses and monographs on state–business relations for non-Japanese countries.…”

Section: The Location Of Problemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Because this pitfall lies at the heart of the literature, state studies—developmentalist or “post”—can advance only by recognizing, revisiting, and rectifying it. In the absence of this effort, our new corpus “after developmentalism” (Carroll and Jarvis, 2017) might harbor the same difficulty (see also Stubbs, 2009).…”

Section: The Location Of Problemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Democracy Against Labor Movement: Japan’s Anti-Labor Developmental State and Aftermaths

Hayashi

2020

Critical Sociology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper investigates the labor-controlling orientation of the Japanese developmental state and its consequences today. Developmental state studies has given us a robust epistemological grid whereby we can make non-Western state formation intelligible. Yet, mainstream authors have tended to treat the working class as a mere appendage to state– business relations, relegating labor politics at the analysis of state– society relations. By using democratic Japan—a prime example of this sort of obfuscation—in combination with Marxian state theory, this paper outlines the difficulties, addresses them, and extends the scope of developmental state studies to labor. After identifying main tenets of the literature, the author constructs a theory of labor control as a stabilizer of relative state autonomy. The author applies this to Japanese labor movements since 1945 and interprets events and processes of labor oppression/regulation through which Japanese capitalism subsumed the working class under the aegis of the developmental state. Labor control, emerging out of an “exceptional state” (Poulantzas, 1974), evolved into a refined socio-relational system that insulated developmental goals from labor movements. This Japanese trajectory keenly mobilized big business and elite labor, which transformed labor control into a bilateral and then a tripartite league in defense of industrial policy and its deskilling/reskilling intervention. By the 1970s, this achieved the famous docility of Japanese labor. The historically constructed character of docile labor force was exploited once again when Japan made a neoliberal turn in its post-development phase.

show abstract

“…Since the early 1970s, however, the emphasis of multilateral development institutions has increasingly focused on regulatory reform agendas designed to support market‐led development (Carroll, ; Carroll and Jarvis, , ; Harvey, ; Jarvis, ; Jayasuriya, ; Pradella and Marois, ; Robison et al., ). Structural adjustment, conditional lending and technical assistance programmes, for example, now routinely advocate the break‐up of state monopolies, privatization and the creation of market competition as core policy tools supporting economic development.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The OECD and the Reconfiguration of the State in Emerging Economies: Manufacturing ‘Regulatory Capacity’

Jarvis¹

2017

Development and Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article explores attempts to construct ‘regulatory capacity’ in developing countries, focusing on the work of the Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development (OECD) and its role as an international standard‐setting institution in regulatory governance. The article explores how the construction of specific forms of regulatory capacity, and attempts to orchestrate the adoption of regulatory reform agendas in emerging economies, reflect broader processes of political‐policy transfer that impact state capacity and the ability of developing states to manage economic development. By analysing the OECD's engagement practices with third party organizations such as APEC (Asia‐Pacific Economic Cooperation organization) and ASEAN (the Association of Southeast Asian Nations) and its specific engagement with emerging economies through country ‘reviews’ and ‘audits’, the author explores the implications for state capacity in terms of the adoption of regulatory systems of governance.

show abstract

Disembedding Autonomy

Cited by 21 publications

References 67 publications

Urban entrepreneurialism 3.0 and the export of urban expertise: The case of South Korea’s international information and telecommunication technology program

Urban entrepreneurialism 3.0 and the export of urban expertise: The case of South Korea’s international information and telecommunication technology program

Democracy Against Labor Movement: Japan’s Anti-Labor Developmental State and Aftermaths

The OECD and the Reconfiguration of the State in Emerging Economies: Manufacturing ‘Regulatory Capacity’

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About