vivek chibber, locked in place (2003) chapter 1: introduction

(4): india's failure as a relative failure

(6-7): e. asian example teaches us that this is not so much about state intervention, but about the quality of state intervention. specifically, in two dimensions:

1. state's cohesiveness as a strategic actor
   
2. state's ability to extract performance from private firms

(9): critical--the question of the installation of this apparatus has been answered by referencing goings-on within the state. in contrast, bringing attentiont to the conflicts between the state and societal actors. two nested claims, here:

1. divergence in outcomes depended on the orientation of the business class -- state managers' agenda was frustrated by a well-organized offensive launched by domestic capitalists
2. the mechanism that caused a different reaction in India and Korea was the former's adoption of ISI, and the latter's adoption of ELI. they generated different political incentive structures.

chapter 2

(13) state intervention in the latter half of the twentieth century has been more extensive and invasive than earlier 'late development.' the hallmark is the appearance of 'development planning'.

(16-17): these demands on the state (state capacity) require institutional structures that can do two things:

1. coordinate amongst firms--guarantee inputs and coordinated investment projects
2. compel/discipline capital

(19-23): this, in turn, requires three things

1. rational bureaucracy
2. nodal agencies
3. embededness

(29-44): four theses

1. state building in India imperiled by capitalist offensive; not the case in Korea
   
2. ISI vs. ELI
3. Korea was able to switch to ELI because of unique historical conditions; this was not possible in India, ELI would not have helped appease capitalists
4. full explanation for failure in India would have to incorporate INC demobilization of the labour, which reduced State's autonomy from Capital

(52): coup of 1961, SK -- crucial

(53): not b/c of State power, but b/c of capitalist enthusiasm [this is why point about authoritarianism is misplaced]

(56): Rhee (1948-1961), pursued 'bad' ISI in 50s

(58): crux--critical factor allowing for policy change in SK was emerging alliance between K. and J. capital

(60): EPB as 'nodal agency'

(61): 1964-1965 -- the 'pact' around the export-led strategy

(62-65): control over finance/credit --> State autonomy? [no, Vivek is saying-- this doesn't render state managers indifferent to capitalists' reaction to their policies]

(66): summary page--development of dev. State in SK

(68): b. confidence went down with the coup

(69): 1961-1963 failure in SK

(71): difference between export-led and export-promotion (most countries did latter; SK was unique in pursuing former)

(72): in early 60s, Korean firms not so hot

(72): but firms will still be amenable, where a reasonable chance of success in markets, exists

(73-74): Japanese help was crucial, in SK--and it began before '64-'65

(77): FDI important or not? not a lot of the investment, but central to success in key sectors

(78): in short--the Japanese relationship [seems to suggest that Japanese supplied the credit; what does this mean in terms of importance of State monopoly of credit?]

(79-80): wrt Japanese capital, state support was critical (1) ensuring partnerships; (2) guaranteeing credit, etc. [but why not just allow State control over Japanese? why allow State control over themselves? isn't there a prisoner's dilemma, here? you might even want State to control others, but why your own firm? but maybe 'chaebols' obviate this]

(82): key--ELI causally prior to dev. state

(83): w/o this ELI analysis, you have a 'bootstraps' model

(86): three theses, re: India

1. release of Bombay Plan not motivated by desire to launch developmental State. instead, response to Quit India agitation of '42-'43, which industrialists perceived as threat. trying to preempt socialist planning, calling for capitalist planning
   
2. capitalists were quite opposed to idea of giving State any measure of power to control investment ('39 coordination fell apart', reception of BPlan, etc.). after 1945 very clear.
3. opposition to State power over private capital was generated by structural factors--partly due to flight of British capital, but mainly result of State ISI strategy

(92): Q. India went out of INC's hands

(110): by demobilizing labour, Congress was eroding its capacity to impose discipline

(113): Gandhi--singular capacity to mobilize the masses (especially rural) earned the respect of the Left; staunch defense of property earned the trust of the Right

(125): imp--question, here, of what allowed them to split the labour movement so easily. is it as simple as saying that they had political hegemony?

(128): argument re: business offensive in India

1. state managers needed to both (a) win support of capitalists; (b) impose discipline on capitalists.
   
2. but (b) was not tolerable to capitalists, and (a) made it very rational for them to resist (b) (they liked ISI largesse, which made it easy for them to make profits without ramping up productivity)
   
3. capitalist class was handicapped because self-regulation was discredited; and also 'planning' of the largesse kind was favored
4. as a result, industrial planning policy was passed--but severely compromised by State's concern to appease capitalists. PC basically became an advisory body
   

(142): political lobbying and investment strike, when things didn't seem to be going their way

(144): Nehru was concerned, but couldn't do anything: (1) departure of Left and (2) ascension of V.B. Patel left him powerless

(146): PC was neutered, as a result

(148): the State as 'doting nanny'

(163): importance of 'the nodal agency' -- need to discipline political elites, as well

(169, 172): structure of Korean business important in facilitating corporatist arrangements? made embeddedness/discipline easier? but then should have been easier in India, Vivek notes

(175): regulation in Korea vs. self-regulation in India

(182): in sum, planners weren't given institutional power

(195): why didn't reform occur?

1. not because of ideological biases--ideological argument can't explain why planners didn't pursue 'better' State intervention.
2. not because they were corrupt--in Japan and SK, corruption was compatible with effective State intervention

(196): Crisis of 1957 triggered re-think--onset of foreign-exchange crisis, exports would have to be increased.

(200-206): but trying to turn firms towards export markets, following Korea's example, in 1958-1959--floundered for three basic reasons.

1. preference for the domestic market--firms are comfortable making easy profits insulated from competition. why change? [so why change in SK, after 50s? because of historic opportunity given to them by Japanese]
2. but MNC's in India didn't play the Japanese role--corporations in India exported very little, unlike the Japanese, who had set up to export
3. b/c of this, only State export promotion schemes were left--and these didn't work, for reasons already detailed. structure of policy apparatus wasn't coherent, and firms remained committed to domestic market.
   

(207): imp--the fact that reform was understood as 'less State intervention' rather than 'better State intervention' was a function of the 'balance of forces' [Vivek adds that this was generated by the planning process itself, though I'm unclear what this means, exactly? why did the failure of the planning process produce a more powerful capitalist class? isn't it the case that we had this already--absent a labour upsurge or like increase in State autonomy, this was the destined trajectory]

(209): imp-- bureaucracy reaction to crisis is to ignore plan directives even more, allow foreign capital partnerships to aid import of machinery (this just favored luxury consumption, etc.)

(210): PC was incapacitated by its lack of clout--but it also was implicated in debacle, which made it a prime target for attack

(214): PC duly marginalized under Shastri and Gandhi--power shifted to the ministries

(212, 214): 1964 Nehru dies. 1964-1966 Lal Bahadur Shastri. 1966-1984, w/ exception of 1977-1979, Indira Gandhi. over this period, PC loses all its power.

(217): push towards 'ministerial autonomy' [how do you think of this, structurally? what is the place of the story of 'purely political' conflict?]

(218): US aid for liberalization

(227): planning possible when domestic capital resists, if you have the power, which you can have if (a) bourgeoisie is too weak; (b) labour is strong as counterweight; (c) exceptional circumstances [what would this look like? we're certainly not talking about benign State-capital cooperation anymore]

(228): Taiwan example of (a) [but Pakistan? something else has to be going on]

(228): Postwar France an example of (b)

(229): postwar Japan an example of (c)

(233-236): lots of countries tried ELI in 60s and 70s, but failed. this, largely, was b/c of pre-existing ISI and b/c lack of 'cohesive' State [but former the case in Korea, too, and it doesn't matter; and latter, if important, needs explanation--in acct explained by ELI, no? Vivek focusing, then, rightly, on the inability to reduce 'entry costs'--Korea had this b/c of Japan, but others didn't, obviously]. other possibility was their 'socialization by the State', but this is precluded because of the balance of class forces--of course, there you need a solid State structure.

(239): underdevelopment precluded ELI for most countries

(240): a postwar France, in India?






----

[1] is there an ISI that could anchor development, given suitable State discipline?

[2] authoritarianism important for overcoming resistance of political elites?

[3] question of m-term/l-term rationality, re: accepting discipline? not so much, I think -- they need coordination of investment, etc. so they accept it, on s-term grounds. but worth asking

[4] technological assistance vs. discipline?

[5] Indian capitalists' position as the 'default'