Phenomenal World

March 31st, 2020

Phenomenal World

Duel

COMMON PROCESS

Historical comparisons of European monetary unions

The need to formulate a unified COVID response has placed pressure on European integration in recent days, with Germany and the Netherlands resisting Southern European calls for the issuing of "coronabonds." A 2018 paper by John Ryan and John Loughlin assesses the history of the Latin Monetary Union (LMU), the Scandinavian Monetary Union (SMU), and the Austro-Hungarian Monetary Union (AHMU) in order to glean lessons for EU policymakers in the present.

From the paper:

"The LMU was originally envisaged as a bimetallic agreement, though it transitioned into an effective gold standard in 1878. French economist and politician Félix Esquirou de Parieu saw such a union as the first step in a process of European (even global) integration, which he hoped would culminate in the creation of a full common currency, and, as he predicted somewhat precociously, a 'European Union' directed by a 'European Commission'. The disintegration of the union with the Great War illustrates the danger of insufficient coordination among member states. Partially inspired by the LMU, the SMU was deeply tied to the rise of a political Scandinavism. Like the LMU, it foundered as a result of the impact of the First World War. The conditions were propitious in the Scandinavian countries as they imitated each other’s policy approaches. There were, however, great economic disparities across the different countries, and this points to the dangers of a monetary union without sufficient economic convergence among its member states. Finally, The AHMU was created through an agreement known as the 1867 Compromise which ensured that Austria and Hungary shared a common currency while remaining fiscally sovereign. The main lesson of the AHMU is about the nature of institutional structures. Because of the relative size and power of Austria and Hungary, the union's disintegration illuminates the game theoretic interaction of nations within a monetary union, including their asymmetric ability to exert power and influence over the terms of the supranational agreement."

Link to the piece.

  • "The decision to create the monetary union, the decision of whom to admit, and the decision of whom to appoint to run the ECB are political decisions, taken by political leaders, subject to political constraints, not the social-welfare maximizing decisions of some mythical social planner." Barry Eichengreen and Jeffry Frieden analyze "The Political Economy of European Monetary Unification." Link.
  • A 2019 Max Weber lecture by Philippe Van Parijs discusses notions of justice and their (in)operability within the monetary union framework, featuring discussion from Rawls on the EU and a reading of Hayek on monetary unions. Link.
  • "Many regional currency institutions were established in sub-Saharan Africa under colonial rule. Surprisingly, a number of these colonial institutions survived the transition to national independence, and several have survived to the present day." Scott Cooper and Clark Asay on the colonial legacy of the West African franc zones and the Southern African rand zone. Link.
⤷ Full Article

March 25th, 2020

Tilted Ark

PRODUCTION MAINLINE

Wartime economic planning

This week, reports swirled regarding President Trump's invocation of the Defense Production Act—a 1950 law passed to manage production in the context of the Korean War—to meet the coming demand of crucial medical supplies to treat people with COVID-19. Much of the ensuing commentary has elided necessary distinctions between the Cold War–era DPA and the more memorable interventions into the productive capacity of the US economy that defined the Second World War. (For a helpful disaggregation, see this essay by Tim Barker; for a rundown of the DPA's history, see this summary from the Congressional Research Service.)

In his book, Arsenal of World War II (the fourth in a five-volume series on the political economy of American warfare), PAUL KOISTINEN provides a uniquely comprehensive and detailed account of the often misunderstood economics and administration of America's World War II mobilization effort.

From the book's introduction:

"An ironic legacy of the New Deal was that it helped create the partnership between corporate and military America that was destructive to reform. In the defense and war years, New Dealers took the lead in preparing the nation for World War II. Once hostilities ensued, the same reformers were at the center of devising the structure and controls essential for successfully harnessing the economy for war under stable economic conditions. Many of those same New Dealers became victims of the industry-military alliance that their mobilization policies and methods had assisted in bringing into being.

Despite advancement in weaponry, massive output was the critical World War II development, and that depended on successful economic mobilization policies. The political economy of warfare involves the interrelations of political, economic, and military institutions in devising the means to mobilize resources for defense and to conduct war. In each war, the magnitude and the duration of the fighting have dictated what the nation had to do to harness its economic power, but prewar trends have largely determined how this mobilization took place."

Link to the book page.

  • Mark Wilson's 2016 book, Destructive Creation, also on the business-government relationships that defined the World War II mobilization effort. Link.
  • A few recent articles on medical supplies: on the ventilator shortage; on mask production in China; on Taiwan's response to the virus; on the EU's plans to airlift masks; on China's increasing medical supply delivery to Europe.
  • From Otto Neurath's 1919 "War Economy": "The main result of our investigation may be expressed as follows: war forces a nation to pay more attention to the amount of goods which are at its disposal, less to the available amounts of money than it usually does." Link to Neurath's collected writings on economics.
⤷ Full Article

March 16th, 2020

Study for a Club Scene

BUNDLED SPREAD

Supply chains and geographical dispersion

At present it's difficult to think of much else beyond the fragility of our global economic infrastructure. A 2012 discussion paper by RICHARD BALDWIN looks at global supply chains: their history, future, and policy implications.

From the paper:

"Globalization’s second unbundling and the global supply chains it spawned have produced and continue to produce changes that alter all aspects of international relations: economic, political and even military. Supply chain fractionalization—the functional unbundling of production processes—is governed by a fundamental trade-off between specialization and coordination costs. Supply chain dispersion—the geographical unbundling of stages of production—is governed by a balance between dispersion forces and agglomeration forces.

The future of global supply chains will be influenced by four key determinants: 1) improvements in coordination technology that lowers the cost of functional and geographical unbundling, 2) improvements in computer integrated manufacturing that lowers the benefits of specialization and shifts stages toward greater skill-, capital, and technology-intensity, 3) narrowing of wage gaps that reduces the benefit of North-South offshoring to nations like China, and 4) the price of oil that raises the cost of unbundling."

Link to the paper.

  • "If the virus continues to spread at the same rate, supply chains will inevitably break apart and factories will start to close." From February, the FT editorial board on the "decoupling of global trade." Link.
  • A paper from the Institute for Global Law and Policy "asserts the centrality of legal regimes and private ordering mechanisms to the creation, structure, geography, distributive effects and governance of global value chains." Link. See also: a LPE Blog symposium based on the paper. Link.
  • "Capital is thoroughly globalized. Could it now be labor’s turn?" Peter Evans on a global strategy for organized labor. Link. And a new paper by Adrien Thomas "looks at strategies adopted by trade unions to unionize migrant workers, and discusses tensions related to the diversification of trade union policies and organizational structures in response to labor migration." Link.

h/t the one and only Francis Tseng for many of these links.

⤷ Full Article

March 9th, 2020

Flanked by Two Dolphins

SYSTEM CIRCULATE

An ecosocial theory of disease

The correlation between health, income, and wealth is widely recognized in contemporary research and policy circles. This broadly social understanding of public health outcomes has its origins in a theoretical tradition dating back to the 1970s and 80s, in which scholars began to embed medical research within a political and economic framework.

In a 2001 paper, epidemiologist NANCY KRIEGER seeks to strengthen the theoretical foundations of epidemiological research by linking them back to biological study.

From the paper:

"If social epidemiologists are to gain clarity on causes of and barriers to reducing social inequalities in health, adequate theory is a necessity. Grappling with notions of causation raises issues of accountability and agency: simply invoking abstract notions like 'society' and disembodied 'genes' will not suffice. Instead, the central question becomes who and what is responsible for population patterns of health, disease, and well-being, as manifested in present, past and changing social inequalities in health?

Arising in part as a critique of proliferating theories that emphasize individuals' responsibility to choose healthy lifestyles, the political economy of health school explicitly addresses economic and political determinants of health and disease, including structural barriers to people living healthy lives. Yet, despite its invaluable contributions to identifying social determinants of population health, a political economy of health perspective affords few principles for investigating what these determinants are determining. I propose a theory that conceptualizes changing population patterns of health, disease and well-being in relation to each level of biological, ecological and social organization (e.g. cell, organ, organism/ individual, family, community, population, society, ecosystem). Unlike prior causal frameworks—whether of a triangle connecting 'host', 'agent' and 'environment', or a 'chain of causes' arrayed along a scale of biological organization, from 'society' to 'molecular and submolecular particles'—this framework is multidimensional and dynamic and allows us to elucidate population patterns of health, disease and well-being as biological expressions of social relations—potentially generating new knowledge and new grounds for action."

Link to the piece.

  • Krieger's 1994 article takes a closer look at epidemiological causal frameworks, questioning the adequacy of multiple causation. And her 2012 paper asks: "Who or what is a population?" and articulates the analytical significance of this definition for epidemiological research. Link and link.
  • "Disease epidemics are as much markers of modern civilization as they are threats to it." In NLR, Rob and Rodrick Wallace consider how the development of the global economy has altered the spread of epidemics, taking the 2014 Ebola outbreak as a case study. Link.
  • Samuel S. Myers and Jonathan A. Patz argue that climate change constitutes the "greatest public health challenge humanity has faced." Link.
  • A history of epidemics in the Roman Empire, from 27 BC – 476 AD, by Francois Relief and Louise Cilliers. Link. And a 1987 book by Ann Bowman Jannetta analyzes the impact of disease on institutional development in early modern Japan. Link.
⤷ Full Article

March 2nd, 2020

Honeysuckle

CLEAR MEANS

Evaluating evidence-based policy

Over the past two decades, "evidence-based policy" has come to define the common sense of research and policymakers around the world. But while attempts have been made to create formalization schemes for the ranking of evidence for policy, a gulf remains between rhetoric about evidence-based policy and applied theories for its development.

In a 2011 paper, philosophers of science NANCY CARTWRIGHT and JACOB STEGENGA lay out a "theory of evidence for use," discussing the role of causal counterfactuals, INUS conditions, and mechanisms in producing evidence—and how all this matters for its evaluators.

From the paper:

"Truth is a good thing. But it doesn’t take one very far. Suppose we have at our disposal the entire encyclopaedia of unified science containing all the true claims there are. Which facts from the encyclopaedia do we bring to the table for policy deliberation? Among all the true facts, we want on the table as evidence only those that are relevant to the policy. And given a collection of relevant true facts we want to know how to assess whether the policy will be effective in light of them. How are we supposed to make these decisions? That is the problem from the user’s point of view and that is the problem of focus here.

We propose three principles. First, policy effectiveness claims are really causal counterfactuals and the proper evaluation of a causal counterfactual requires a causal model that (i) lays out the causes that will operate and (ii) tells what they produce in combination. Second, causes are INUS conditions, so it is important to review both the different causal complexes that will affect the result (the different pies) and the different components (slices) that are necessary to act together within each complex (or pie) if the targeted result is to be achieved. Third, a good answer to the question ‘How will the policy variable produce the effect’ can help elicit the set of auxiliary factors that must be in place along with the policy variable if the policy variable is to operate successfully."

Link to the paper.

  • Cartwright has written extensively on evidence and its uses. See: her 2012 book Evidence Based Policy: A Practical Guide to Doing it Better; her 2011 paper in The Lancet on RCTs and effectiveness; and her 2016 co-authored monograph on child safety, featuring applications of the above reasoning.
  • For further introduction to the philosophical underpinnings of Cartwright's applied work, and the relationship between theories of causality and evidence, see her 2015 paper "Single Case Causes: What is Evidence and Why." Link. And also: "Causal claims: warranting them and using them." Link.
  • Obliquely related, see this illuminating discussion of causality in the context of reasoning about discrimination in machine learning and the law, by JFI fellow and Harvard PhD Candidate Lily Hu and Yale Law School Professor Issa Kohler-Hausmann: "What's Sex Got To Do With Machine Learning?" Link.
  • A 2017 paper by Abhijit Banerjee et al: "A Theory of Experimenters," which models "experimenters as ambiguity-averse decision-makers, who make trade-offs between subjective expected performance and robustness. This framework accounts for experimenters' preference for randomization, and clarifies the circumstances in which randomization is optimal: when the available sample size is large enough or robustness is an important concern." Link.
⤷ Full Article

February 24th, 2020

Encore

STRANGE PUSH

A retrospective look at cap & trade

Of the various issues mired in severe and ongoing party polarization, climate crisis is among the most puzzling. Despite longstanding discussions of bipartisan market-based policy proposals like carbon taxes and cap and trade, large-scale government and industry action remains elusive.

In a masterful 2013 book-length report, Harvard political scientist THEDA SKOCPOL offers an autopsy of the 2009-10 push for cap and trade legislation. The detail-rich account illuminates not just the legislation's failure, and its leaders in the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), but the innumerable complexities of the broader Washington policymaking apparatus.

(h/t to climate economist Gernot Wagner, associate professor at NYU and founder of Harvard's Solar Geoengineering Lab, for bringing this piece back up in a recent newsletter and column.)

"If environmental politics in America was ever a matter of working out shared bipartisan solutions to expert-assessed problems, it is now far from that—but in what ways and why? And what is to be done? My report ponders these matters.

The corporations that participated in USCAP could double their bottom-line bets—by participating in the "strange-bedfellows" effort to hammer out draft climate legislation that was as favorable as possible to their industry or their firms. But heads of the leading environmental organizations in USCAP had to stick by whatever commitments they made in the internal coalitional process, or else it would fall apart.

The USCAP campaign was designed and conducted in an insider-grand-bargaining political style that, unbeknownst to its sponsors, was unlikely to succeed given fast-changing realities in U.S. partisan politics and governing institutions."

Link to the full report.

  • In the footnotes: Eric Pooley's 2010 book The Climate War, which provides an in-depth account of the activities of USCAP. Link to an excerpt from the book, link to the publisher page.
  • A 2011 paper by Michele Betsill and Matthew Hoffman examines the "contours" of cap and trade, through an analysis of 33 distinct policy venues. Link. And a 2015 paper tracks climate adaptation planning across 156 U.S. municipalities. Link.
  • A previous newsletter highlighted Skocpol's essential work on US welfare history. Link to the archived letter. And link to a recent blog post featuring climate academic Leah Stokes's recommended readings on climate-related research.
⤷ Full Article

February 18th, 2020

The Importance of Being Evergreen

ADMINISTRATION PRIMARY

A comparative overview of national healthcare systems

In an employer-sponsored healthcare system like that of the United States, deteriorating labor market protections have immediate consequences for access to healthcare. Democratic primary candidates have presented a number of proposals to address declining rates of insurance, ranging in degrees of accessibility, coverage, and number of providers.

In her 1992 book, Healthcare Politics, ELLEN M. IMMERGUT seeks to explain America's healthcare system through a comparison of its history to Switzerland's, France's, and Sweden's. From the author's preface:

"I compare the politics of three countries where national health insurance had been proposed, but where, as a result of political struggles, the final policy results are diverse. Medical associations in all three countries had opposed national health insurance on the grounds that doctors preferred to work as private practitioners and not as government employees. How then could one explain the fact that Switzerland rejected national health insurance, France accepted it, and Sweden not only enacted national health insurance, but later converted its health system to a de facto national health service? The history of each case pointed insistently to the role played by standard political institutions. The Swiss referendum, the French parliament, and the Swedish executive bureaucracy emerged as key elements in an explanation of national health insurance politics in those countries.

The resulting book argues for the primacy of these institutions in explaining policy outcomes precisely because they facilitate or impede the entry of different groups into the policy-making process. In Switzerland, the public interest on any specific policy issue is viewed as the sum of the demands of individual citizens as expressed in national referenda. In Sweden, on the other hand, proper representation for policy issues is a matter of consensual agreements between interest groups, whose large memberships and democratic procedures ensure their responsiveness to the public. In France, the rules of representation stress the importance of an impartial executive standing above the particularistic claims of interest groups. But there is no linear relationship between a specific set of political institutions and the interest groups that will succeed or the health system that results. These histories are filled with unexpected events, sudden about faces, and new strategies. This book is a call to look at these histories, not just at the broad sweep of major events, but also at the seemingly minor struggles that make up daily political life. These are the battles that establish the constraints on politics, but they are also the junctures that extend the limits of the possible."

Link to a downloadable copy of the book.

  • "The postwar growth of public expenditures in the health sector and the growth of universalism in coverage of benefits is tied to the strength of the labor movement in each country." Vincent Navarro's influential 1989 paper situates healthcare policies within a broader distributional framework. Link.
  • "The idea of a British hospital system funded by its users is one which emerged only late in the 19th century. Before this, care was provided through thousands of voluntary hospitals." Martin Gorsky, John Mohan, and Tim Willis on "Mutualism and Healthcare" in the UK. And in a similar vein, David T. Beito's 2000 book on the fraternal societies which provided healthcare to millions of Americans throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries. Link and link.
  • A recent paper by Stefan Bauernschuster, Anastasia Driva, and Erik Hornung uses "the introduction of compulsory health insurance in the German Empire in 1884 as a natural experiment to study the impact of social health insurance on mortality," finding that "Bismarck’s health insurance generated a significant mortality reduction." Link.
⤷ Full Article

February 10th, 2020

Part of Some Totality

DELIBERATE ETHOS

"Informality" and globalization

Standard theories of development have been predicated on the goal of an industrialized economy with the potential for full and regularized employment. Such a view necessitates a host of statistical categories to define and measure labor markets. In a 2000 paper, PAUL E. BANGASSER writes an institutional history of the International Labor Organization's (ILO) evolving attempts to understand and quantify the category of the "informal sector"—by now a permanent feature of the global workforce.

From the paper:

"Over the past three decades, the ILO has been both the midwife and the principal international institutional home for the concept of the informal sector. While the phrase 'informal sector' came onto the development scene in 1972, its roots reach back into the economic development efforts of the 1950s and 1960s. With the surprisingly successful rebuilding of Europe and Japan following the Second World War, there seemed no reason why a similar sort of deliberate economy-building effort could not also be applied to the newly emerging countries in the Third World. This technical ethos towards development was especially strong in UN Specialized Agencies like the ILO. It allowed them a measure of protection from Cold War political crossfire without undercutting either their raison d’être nor their universality.

Attention to the informal sector crescendoed in the early 1990s. The 1991 Director General’s Report, The dilemma of the informal sector, notes that 'Contrary to earlier beliefs, the informal sector is not going to disappear spontaneously with economic growth. It is, on the contrary, likely to grow in the years to come, and with it the problems of urban poverty and congestion will also grow.' A growing urbanization is consistent with the developmental expectations of the 1950s and 1960s. However, that this trend towards urbanization would represent a nexus of seemingly unsolvable problems of grinding urban poverty is quite different from that earlier thinking. The upward spiraling dynamics of 'modernization' which were supposed to accompany urbanization, and lead to economic 'takeoff,' didn’t kick in; there wasn’t any trickle-down of any significance, nor should any be expected, at least not within any reasonable time frame. This is an important conclusion, with fundamental implications for the conventional development paradigm."

Link to the paper.

  • Keith Hart's 1973 paper "Informal Income Opportunities and Urban Employment in Ghana" coined the phrase "informal sector." From the paper: "The distinction between formal and informal income opportunities is based essentially on that between wage-earning and self-employment. The key variable is the degree of rationalization of work—that is to say, whether or not labour is recruited on a permanent and regular basis for fixed rewards." Link.
  • A 2019 paper by Aaron Benanav (previously shared here) critically appraises the ILO's attempts at defining informality, situating the emergence of the "informal sector" as tied to the mid-century efforts to "generate a globally operational concept of unemployment for use in the 'developing world.'" Link. (For a broader, less empirical take along similar lines, see Michael Denning's 2006 article "Wageless Life." Link.)
  • A new IZA paper by Andrea Brandolini and Eliana Viviano looks at contemporary employment statistics and proposes supplemental indices that "account for people's experience in labor market states (e.g. work intensity for the employed and search intensity or unemployment duration for the unemployed)." Link.
  • "All the materials and human instruments of production are present in abundance, nay in excess. But their normal collaboration is impossible, because they cannot market the goods they could produce, so as to cover even the barest costs of the production." From 1924, The Economics of Unemployment by J. A. Hobson. Link.
⤷ Full Article

February 3rd, 2020

Winter Night

VARIABLE DEPEDENCE

Debating the merits of large- and small-N studies

Sample size does more than determine the sort of methodology appropriate for a given study; theorists of social science have long pointed out that the number of case studies considered determines the sorts of questions researchers can analyze and the structure of their causal claims.

A 2003 paper by PETER HALL takes these debates further. In the context of comparative political science, Hall argues that the sort of methods researchers use should be consistent with their beliefs about the nature of historical development. From the paper:

"Ontology is crucial to methodology because the appropriateness of a particular set of methods for a given problem turns on assumptions about the nature of the causal relations they are meant to discover. It makes little sense to apply methods designed to establish the presence of functional relationships, for instance, if we confront a world in which causal relationships are not functional. To be valid, the methodologies used in a field must be congruent with its prevailing ontologies. There has been a postwar trend in comparative politics toward statistical methods, based preeminently on the standard regression model. Over the same period, the ontologies of the field have moved in a different direction: toward theories, such as those based on path dependence or strategic interaction, whose conceptions of the causal structures underlying outcomes are at odds with the assumptions required for standard regression techniques.

The types of regression analyses commonly used to study comparative politics provide valid support for causal inferences only if the causal relations they are examining meet a rigorous set of assumptions. In general, this method assumes unit homogeneity, which is to say that, other things being equal, a change in the value of a causal variable x will produce a corresponding change in the value of the outcome variable y of the same magnitude across all the cases. It assumes no systematic correlation between the causal variables included in the analysis and other causal variables. And most regression analyses assume that there is no reciprocal causation, that is, that the causal variables are unaffected by the dependent variable. The problem is that the world may not have this causal structure.

Small-N comparison is therefore far more useful for assessing causal theories than conventional understandings of the 'comparative method' imply. Precisely because such research designs cover small numbers of cases, the researcher can investigate causal processes in each of them in detail, thereby assessing the relevant theories against especially diverse kinds of observations. Reconceptualized in these terms, the comparative method emerges not as a poor substitute for statistical analysis, but as a distinctive approach that offers a much richer set of observations, especially about causal processes, than statistical analyses normally allow."

Link to the piece.

  • "Except for probabilistic situations that approach 1 or 0 (in other words, those that are almost deterministic), studies based on a small number of cases have difficulty in evaluating probabilistic theories." Stanley Lieberson's 1991 overview of the causal assumptions inherent to small-N studies. Link.
  • Theda Skocpol and Margaret Somers on "The Uses of Comparative History in Macrosocial Inquiry." Link.
  • Jean Lachapelle, Lucan A. Way, and Steven Levitsky use small-N process tracing to "examine the role of the coercive apparatus in responding to crises triggered by mass anti-regime protest in Iran and Egypt." Link. Andrey V. Korotayev, Leonid M. Issaev, Sergey Yu. Malkov and Alisa R. Shishkina present a quantitative analysis of destabilization factors in 19 countries during the Arab Spring. Link.
⤷ Full Article

January 27th, 2020

Preparation

PATTERN MANAGE

Re-thinking industrial policy

Deindustrialization is a global phenomenon taking place more rapidly in middle- income countries than in high-income ones. Despite the global decline of manufacturing employment, "industrial policy" is increasingly salient in research and policy debates. But deindustrialization poses significant challenges for industrial strategy—particularly as it relates to direct state investment in productive capacity.

In a new article, "Industrial Policy in the 21st Century," Ha-Joon Chang and Antonio Andreoni lay the groundwork for a new theory of industrial policy:

"Since the 18th century, the debate surrounding industrial policy has been one of the most important in the political economy of development. We discuss a number of issues which cannot be accommodated within the neoclassical framework and which are also often neglected by evolutionary and structuralist contributions—namely, commitment under uncertainty, learning in production, macroeconomic management, and conflict management. We also address three new challenges for industrial policy makers in a changing world: the global value chain, the increasing financialization of the world economy, and changes in the rules of the global economic system.

Despite differences across countries in terms of their stages and levels of industrialization, their macroeconomic regimes and their political economy settings, the three sets of neglected issues we focus on are and will remain of paramount importance. The need to address long-term grand challenges like climate change calls for massive and coordinated investments in energy systems, production practices and mobility. The achievement of these global transformations still depends on micro-level structural changes in productive organizations and government interventions in creating new worlds of production as well as managing industrial and social restructuring."

Link to the piece.

  • "Industrial policy can no longer be about industry or manufacturing per se. As the world economy turns increasingly towards services, it is clear that we will need a conception of industrial policy that addresses the need to nurture and develop modern economic activities more broadly, including but not limited to manufacturing." Karl Aiginger and Dani Rodrik's introduction to the special issue of Industry, Competition, and Trade. Link. In the same issue, Nathan Lane presents a "New Empirics of Industrial Policy." Link.
  • In Industrial and Corporate Change, Mario Pianta, Matteo Lucchese, and Leopoldo Nascia assess the post-crisis industrial policies of the European Union and examine the potential for more active public investment policies in the years to come. Link.
  • John Waterbury's extensive comparison between the industrial strategies of Nasser and Sadat. Link. From 1993, Hajoon Chang on the importance of state intervention in the "political economy of industrial policy in South Korea." Link.
⤷ Full Article