• Login
View Item 
  • DASH Home
  • Harvard Kennedy School
  • HKS Center for International Development
  • View Item
  • DASH Home
  • Harvard Kennedy School
  • HKS Center for International Development
  • View Item
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

Browse

All of DASH
  • Communities & Collections
  • By Issue Date
  • Author
  • Title
  • Keyword
  • FAS Department
This Collection
  • By Issue Date
  • Author
  • Title
  • Keyword

Submitters

  • Login
  • Quick submit
  • Waiver Generator

About

  • About DASH
  • DASH Stories
  • DASH FAQs
  • Accessibility
  • COVID-related Research
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy

Statistics

  • By Schools
  • By Collections
  • By Departments
  • By Items
  • By Country
  • By Authors

Development Strategy and Economic Institutions in Less Developed Countries

 
Thumbnail
View/Open
017.pdf (367.5Kb)
Author
Lin, Justin Yifu
Zhang, Pengfei
Published Version
https://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/cid/publications/fellow-graduate-student-working-papers
Metadata
Show full item record
Citation
Lin, Justin Yifu, and Pengfei Zhang. “Development Strategy and Economic Institutions in Less Developed Countries.” CID Graduate Student and Postdoctoral Fellow Working Paper Series 2007.17, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, March 2007.
Abstract
In this paper, we construct a three-sector model to explore the politically determined development objectives and the intrinsic logic of government intervention policies in less developed countries (LDCs). We argue that many interventionist and distorted institutional arrangements in China, socialist countries, and other LDCs after the World War II can be largely explained by their governments’ adoption of an inappropriate development strategy. Motivated by nation building, most LDCs, both socialist and non-socialist, adopted a Catch-up type comparative advantage-defying (CAD) strategy to accelerate the growth of capital-intensive, advanced sectors in their countries. Many firms in the priority sectors of this strategy were nonviable in open, competitive markets because the priority sectors were not their economies’ comparative advantages. The model shows that the government’s interventions, including distorted prices for products and essential factors of production, highly centralized planned resource allocation system and a micro-management mechanism in which firms were deprived of autonomy, are endogenous to the needs of maximizing resource mobilization for building up the priority sectors and to support non-viable firms in those sectors. Thus, given the government’s motivation, i.e., pursuing Catch-up type CAD strategy, these distorted economic institutions and interventionist policies existing in the LDCs were desirable. Without addressing the firms’ viability issue and giving up the Catch-up type CAD strategy, the implementation of price liberalization, privatization, and elimination of other distortions would result in poorer economic performance in the LDCs than that before the reform.
Terms of Use
This article is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of-use#LAA
Citable link to this page
https://nrs.harvard.edu/URN-3:HUL.INSTREPOS:37366439

Collections
  • HKS Center for International Development [465]

Contact administrator regarding this item (to report mistakes or request changes)

Follow us on TwitterFollow us on FacebookFollow us on Google+

e: osc@harvard.edu

t: +1 (617) 495 4089

f: +1 (617) 495 0370

© 2018 President and Fellows of Harvard College
  • DASH
  • ETDs@Harvard
  • Copyright First Responders
  • HOPE
  • Contact
  • Harvard Library
  • Harvard University