Atul KohliCambridge University PressEdition: Illustrated, 11/4/2004EAN 9780521545259, ISBN10: 0521545250Paperback, 478 pages, 22.9 x 15.2 x 3 cmLanguage: EnglishWhy 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.Introductionstates and industrialization in the global peripheryPart I. Galloping AheadKorea1. The colonial origins of a modern political economythe Japanese lineage of Korea's cohesive-capitalist state2. The rhee interregnumsaving South Korea for cohesive capitalism3. A cohesive-capitalist state reimposedPark Chung Hee and rapid industrializationPart II. Two Steps Forward, One Step BackBrazil4. Invited dependencyfragmented state and foreign resources in Brazil's early industrialization5. Grow now, pay laterstate indebted industrialization in modern BrazilPart III. Slow but SteadyIndia6. Origins of a fragmented-multiclass state and a sluggish economycolonial India7. India's fragmented-multiclass state and protected industrializationPart IV. Dashed ExpectationsNigeria8. Colonial Nigeriaorigins of a neopatrimonial state and a commodity-exporting economy9. Sovereign Nigerianeopatrimonialism and failure of industrializationConclusionunderstanding states and state intervention in the global periphery.'This manuscript is a tour de force of comparative, cross-regional, historically-based political economy analysis of one of the major issues that faced us in the last century and continues to do so now - why some states have done better than others at development. This type of work is very difficult to do, requiring broad contextual and technical knowledge, a keen sense of politics, and a deep knowledge of individual cases - all linked with excellent analytic capabilities. Professor Kohli has all of these and more.' Thomas Callaghy, University of Pennsylvania