Dr Jostein Hauge CBG.8.14

This course is available on the MSc in Global Politics, MSc in International Affairs (LSE and Peking University), MSc in International Political Economy, MSc in International Political Economy (LSE and Sciences Po), MSc in International Political Economy (Research), MSc in International Relations, MSc in International Relations (LSE and Sciences Po), MSc in International Relations (Research) and MSc in Theory and History of International Relations. This course is available with permission as an outside option to students on other programmes where regulations permit.

All students are required to obtain permission from the Teacher Responsible by completing the Student Statement box on the online application form linked to course selection on LSE for You. Admission is not guaranteed

What role should the state play in economic development? How has globalisation effected what the state can still actually do to promote economic development? Between the 50s and 80s, the East Asian ‘developmental state’ model delivered rapid industrialisation through extensive state intervention, seemingly refuting not only the claims of free market economics, but also of dependency theory: that poor countries could never develop due to the very nature of the capitalist world system.

Since the 80s, the applicability of the East Asian model was challenged in new ways. Structural changes in the global political economy, including the end of fixed exchange rates, increased capital mobility, the development of international financial markets, privatisation of the commanding heights of the economy, the proliferation of restrictive trade and investment agreements, and the rise of global value chains, led many to argue that even if it was economically beneficial for other countries to implement the East Asian model, this was no longer possible because globalisation had dramatically constrained the power of the nation state. Others argued that concerns over the constraints posed by globalisation were overblown, and that domestic interests, institutions, and ideas were responsible for holding back structural transformation of the economy.

This course will combine debates in IPE, over how the process of globalisation has transformed the capacity for state action, with debates in the political economy of development over the role of the state in the process of late development. Students will gain an understanding not only of the debate over how much domestic policy autonomy developing countries have after globalisation, but also of the kinds of policies they need this policy space for. Problems of underdevelopment are approached through the prism of both core-periphery power relations, and power relations arising from the domestic productive structure.

This course is delivered through a combination of seminars and lectures totalling a minimum of 20 hours across Lent Term. This year, some or all of this teaching will be delivered through a combination of online lectures and in-person classes/classes delivered online.

Students on this course will have a reading week in Week 6, in line with departmental policy.

Students will be expected to produce 1 essay and 1 presentation in the LT.

Chang, H. J., & Grabel, I. (2014). Reclaiming development: an alternative economic policy manual. Zed Books Ltd.

Haggard, S. (2018). Developmental States. Cambridge University Press.

Cardoso, F. H., & Faletto, E. (1979). Dependency and development in Latin America (Dependencia y desarrollo en América Latina, engl.). Univ of California Press.

Strange, S. (2015). States and markets. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Chang, H. J. (2002). Kicking away the ladder: development strategy in historical perspective. Anthem Press.

Hirst, P., Thompson, G., & Bromley, S. (2015). Globalization in question. John Wiley & Sons.

Essay (90%, 2500 words) in the ST.
Continuous assessment (10%) in the LT.

The continuous assessment will be weekly writings: 10 x 1-page bullet point outlines answering one of the assigned seminar questions.