peter evans, predatory, developmental and other apparatuses (1989)

(561): main thesis--effiicacy of developmental state depends on meritocratic bureaucracy w/ strong identity AND a strong set of institutionalized links to private elites

(562): States are not homogeneous--thus, the effects of their intervention will not be homogenous

(564): neoutilitarian understanding of State actors is impoverished (that they are rent-seekers who will reward best bribers, not most efficient), even if it captures something real

(566): from within this perspective, it's very difficult to understand how any type of State business could happen.

(567, 573): Weber's picture is the mirror-image--State actors' path to personal advancement comes from good performance

(568): for Gersenkron, State has to be a surrogate entrepreneur; has to actively promote investment and offer 'disequalibriating' incentives (Hirschmann). all of this requries 'insulation', as well as intelligence, responsiveness, etc.

(570-571): Zaire as example of predatory State -- but not illustration of bureaucratization as problem. quite the opposite--lack of capacity to behave like a bureaucracy

(572): State acts as a surrogate for missing capital market, in Japan, and induced investments that transformed development path

(573): internal networks matter to coherence of bureaucracy in Japan

(573-574): external networks (links to business) matter tremendously in Japan (though they're not sufficient--State also needs 'autonomy')

(575): noting that these States emerged in a particular context: agrarian elites decimated, industrial groups disorganized, etc. [what's the importance of this, in the final analysis?]

(575): in sum, embedded autonomy

(576): there are problems generated by success, of course

(577): Brazil as intermediary case, where you see both Zaire and Japan [but can we specify what bureaucratic inefficiency is a result of? here the centrality of political appointments?]

(578-579): Brazilian state not embedded properly, b/c of landed oligarchy's resilience and active presence of transnational capital

(581): in sum, embedded autonomy seems to be a function of (1) internal organizational capacity [which is a function of what, exactly?] and (2) the surrounding social structure [how, exactly?]