reviving the developmental state? myth of national bourgeoisie, vivek chibber

(227): three Marxist expectations for national bourgeoisie, which have been called into question

1. expand capitalist relations
2. abolish pre-capitalist relations (anti-feudal, etc.)
3. natural interest in opposing imperialism

(228): assumption that national bourgeoisie is natural force for development needs to be challenged

(230): n. bourgeoisie has been an obstacle to State capacity, which is what was needed for successful development

(237): actual power of State in State-led development was weak

(238) twin problems

1. fiscal drain--slack taken up by public sector, subsidies to inefficient private sector, etc.
2. external account drain--import of capital goods, failure of export-promotion programs (due to resistance from firms)

(241): key point--late-late development was very different form late development, in the role that the State would have to play (more than subsidization/protection, due to comparative severity of backwardness). this is one reason Marxists had trouble understanding.

(242): second reason: Theory of the State issue, as well--instrumentalists understood State entirely in service of capitalist class. but if you allow some independence, it becomes easier to understand the conflict between capitalists and the State. [hmm]

(244): remember, ISI was a massive transfer of resources to capitalists.

(244): co-option and repression lf labour--too often labour was complicit (you mean labour bureaucracy)

-----

1. small number of producers not sufficient to generate competition [same question as last week, which was well-answered: (1) don't want to waste resources; (2) mkt not big enough]

2. th. of the State point. really?