Porównaj metody
Przeglądaj wybrane metody obok siebie; wiersze, które się różnią, są wyróżnione.
| Developmental State Analysis× | State Autonomy Analysis× | |
|---|---|---|
| Dziedzina | Political Economy | Political Economy |
| Rodzina | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Rok powstania≠ | 1982 | 1984 |
| Twórca≠ | Chalmers Johnson & Peter Evans | Theda Skocpol, Peter Evans, Dietrich Rueschemeyer & Michael Mann |
| Typ≠ | Comparative institutional analysis framework | State-centered analytical framework |
| Źródło pierwotne≠ | 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 |
| Inne nazwy | 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 |
| Pokrewne | 3 | 3 |
| Podsumowanie≠ | 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. |
| ScholarGateZbiór danych ↗ |
|
|