LEADER 03417nam  22006732  450 
001 9910457712703321
005 20151005020622.0
010   $a1-139-93116-4
010   $a1-280-70220-6
010   $a0-511-75437-X
010   $a0-511-23093-1
010   $a0-511-23170-9
010   $a0-511-22933-X
010   $a0-511-31683-6
010   $a0-511-23017-6
035   $a(CKB)1000000000353011
035   $a(EBL)275219
035   $a(OCoLC)171139684
035   $a(SSID)ssj0000250934
035   $a(PQKBManifestationID)11188675
035   $a(PQKBTitleCode)TC0000250934
035   $a(PQKBWorkID)10244755
035   $a(PQKB)10161382
035   $a(UkCbUP)CR9780511754371
035   $a(MiAaPQ)EBC275219
035   $a(Au-PeEL)EBL275219
035   $a(CaPaEBR)ebr10150238
035   $a(CaONFJC)MIL70220
035   $a(OCoLC)814469784
035   $a(EXLCZ)991000000000353011
100   $a20141103d2004||||  uy|            0
101 0 $aeng
135   $aur|||||||||||
181   $ctxt$2rdacontent
182   $cc$2rdamedia
183   $acr$2rdacarrier
200 10$aState-directed development $epolitical power and industrialization in the global periphery /$fAtul Kohli$b[electronic resource]
210  1$aCambridge :$cCambridge University Press,$d2004.
215   $a1 online resource (xii, 466 pages) $cdigital, PDF file(s)
300   $aTitle from publisher's bibliographic system (viewed on 05 Oct 2015).
311   $a0-521-54525-0 
311   $a0-521-83670-0 
320   $aIncludes bibliographical references (p. 427-445) and index.
327   $aCover; Half-title; Title; Copyright; Dedication; Contents; List of Tables and Figures; Acknowledgments; Introduction; PART I GALLOPING AHEAD; PART II TWO STEPS FORWARD, ONE STEP BACK; PART III SLOW BUT STEADY; PART IV DASHED EXPECTATIONS; Conclusion; Select Bibliography; Index
330   $aWhy have some developing country states been more successful at facilitating industrialization than others? An answer to this question is developed by focusing both on patterns of state construction and intervention aimed at promoting industrialization. Four countries are analyzed in detail - South Korea, Brazil, India, and Nigeria - over the twentieth century. The states in these countries varied from cohesive-capitalist (mainly in Korea), through fragmented-multiclass (mainly in India), to neo-patrimonial (mainly in Nigeria). It is argued that cohesive-capitalist states have been most effective at promoting industrialization and neo-patrimonial states the least. The performance of fragmented-multiclass states falls somewhere in the middle. After explaining in detail as to why this should be so, the study traces the origins of these different state types historically, emphasizing the role of different types of colonialisms in the process of state construction in the developing world.
606   $aIndustrial policy$zDeveloping countries
606   $aIndustrialization$zDeveloping countries
607   $aDeveloping countries$xEconomic policy
607   $aDeveloping countries$xPolitics and government
615  0$aIndustrial policy
615  0$aIndustrialization
676   $a338.9/009172/4
700   $aKohli$b Atul$0288188
801  0$bUkCbUP
801  1$bUkCbUP
906   $aBOOK
912   $a9910457712703321
996   $aState-directed development$9749754
997   $aUNINA