Vertaile menetelmiä

	Developmental State Analysis	State Autonomy Analysis
Tieteenala	Political Economy	Political Economy
Menetelmäperhe	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Syntyvuosi	1982	1984
Kehittäjä	Chalmers Johnson & Peter Evans	Theda Skocpol, Peter Evans, Dietrich Rueschemeyer & Michael Mann
Tyyppi	Comparative institutional analysis framework	State-centered analytical framework
Alkuperäislähde	Johnson, C. (1982). MITI and the Japanese Miracle: The Growth of Industrial Policy, 1925-1975. Stanford University Press. ISBN: 9780804712064	Evans, P. B., Rueschemeyer, D., & Skocpol, T. (Eds.). (1985). Bringing the State Back In. Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 9780521313131
Rinnakkaisnimet	Developmental State Theory, Embedded Autonomy Approach, State-Led Industrialization Analysis, Plan-Rational State Analysis	State-Centered Analysis, Relative Autonomy Analysis, Infrastructural Power Analysis, Bringing the State Back In Approach
Liittyvät	3	3
Tiivistelmä	Developmental state analysis is a state-centered framework for explaining rapid, state-led industrialization, built from Chalmers Johnson's 1982 study of Japan's MITI and Peter Evans's 1995 theory of embedded autonomy. Its central claim is that in the high-growth economies of East Asia the state did not merely set the rules or correct market failures but actively steered economic transformation — picking sectors, allocating credit, disciplining firms, and coordinating investment — through a meritocratic bureaucracy housed in a powerful pilot agency. The framework analyzes when and how a state acquires the capacity and the relationship to business that let such guidance promote development rather than predation.	State autonomy analysis treats the state not as a neutral arena or a simple instrument of the dominant class but as an organization with interests, capacities, and powers of its own. Crystallized in the 1985 volume Bringing the State Back In edited by Evans, Rueschemeyer, and Skocpol, and given a sharp conceptual edge by Michael Mann's 1984 distinction between despotic and infrastructural power, the framework asks two linked questions: how far can a state formulate goals independent of the preferences of dominant social classes (autonomy), and how effectively can it actually implement those goals across its territory (capacity)? The approach reoriented comparative political economy away from purely society-centered explanations.