Historical Trends of Developmental States in Iran:Post-War (Defa-e moghadas) Era

علوم اجتماعی دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد

Article 4, Volume 14, Issue 1 - Serial Number 29, September 2017, Pages 113-155   

Document Type: Scientific-Research

DOI: 10.22067/jss.v14i1.44319

Authors

Gholamreza Jamshidiha^* ; Seyed Rahim Teymoori

University of Tehran

Abstract

Extended Abstract
1. Introduction
Since the late 1970s, a number of social scientists have paid attention to centralized state powers in capitalist societies and state autonomy theories (Giddens, 1985; Mann, 1986; Skocpol, 1979). Developmental states have evolved around some specific historical events during the 1870s, including two historical trends, namely, The Prussian Empire Conquest over Napoleon III, and the beginning of Meiji Reforms in Japan (Kazemi,2015). Through the elimination of development obstacles, Bismarck and Meiji states (i.e., classic developmental states), as two typical examples of this developmental model, established the related infrastructues and context of national development known as “revolution from above” in Moore parlace (Moore, 1993).
The aftermath of World War II, formation of Eastern Block, and finally, beginning of the Cold War, all together, transferred the geographical field of developmental states to the East Asia (Kazemi, 2015) which in its turn created central core of developmental state in this region. The transfer of developmental states model to the other developing countries in the middle east, Africa and latin America, is the concrete evidence for the emergence of some new developmental states embedded in the situations like changing the environment of global economy, vanishing the cold war, and feeling a pressure toward democratization.
2. Theoretical Framework
One can trace the ideas related to the developmental states in some scholars’ works who have the reputation in classic economic history (e.g., List, 1841; Gerschenkron, 1962; Marx, 1979) and, especially, in institutional economy and sociology (e.g., Johnson, 1982; Evans, 1995,2010; Leftwich, 2000; Cohli, 2004; Routley, 2012; Amsden, 1992; Wade, 1990; Cohli, 2004; Wong, 2004; Block, 2007). The elaboration and outlining of the notions of aforementioned scholars is a suitable analytical tool putting the light on the new developmental states in some manners as follow:
• Crossing of East Asian stereotypical image as the unique experience of developmental states
• Considering the variable environment of the global economy as an international structural status
• Transferability of developmental states, i.e., the diffusion of these states to the other regions of the developing world
• The social origins of developmental states
From the 1990s afterwards, the global socio-economic trend has transformed the developmental states through their historical evolution and expanded their geographical domain and functional diversification. Hence, discussing the new developmental states like Iran, Brazil, and Turkey is a prevailing debate nowadays.
3. Methodology
The developmental state as a notion has been based on two critical sociological theories, i.e. the Weberian political theory (Weber, 1991), and the Neo‐Marxists’ emphasis on the relative autonomy of the capitalist state (Marx, 1979). Thus, this notion has been formed as the most contested development approach, and under the perspective of institutionalism and new dependency schools of thinking. The analysis of developmental states as a specific theory-based work drawing from this idea that a state is as an autonomus institutional body (state-oriented theory), is aimed to provide a transparent and consolidated understanding of causal settings observed in the history of states.
As state-oriented theorists (e.g., Skocpol, 1979) argue, historical-comparative research is the most appropriate method since it combines research strategies, namely, nominal comparison (i.e., an explanation of causes of a unique sequel by eliminating any potencial circumstance) and narrative comparison or tracking process (i.e., perceiving the occurrence process or tracing the causal sequence of a chain of events) (Taleban, 2009).
Among the several characteristics that the new developmental states have [for more details see: (Johnson, 1982);( Leftwich, 2000); ( Chang, 2010); (Evans, 1995); (Chang, 2010); (Routley, 2012);(Johnson, 1982, 1987);(Wade, 1990); (Beeson, 2004); (Routley, 2012); (Haggard, S., Kang, D. & Moon, C. , 1997); (Leftwich, 2000); (Tilly, 1975) ; (Waldner, 1999); (cohli, 2004); (Mkandawire, 2007);(Evans, 2010); (Sandbrook, R., Edelman, M., Heller, P. , 2007)], there are seven features that make a good context for comparing the post-war developmental states in Iran, and are as following:
• Developmental elites,
• Developmental nationalism,
• Developmentalist militias,
• Developmentalist beurucracy,
• The semi-autonomous state apparatus,
• The weak civil society,
• and the state capacity of economic resource controls
4. Findings
The reason for studying Iran as a new developmental state in the Middle East and in comparison with other countries is the need for understanding it’s state-oriented development process and historical modernization. The Iranian modernization trend since Qajar era (i.e., the mid-nineteenth century) had an authoritarian essence, and Qajar state played a main role in embarking that trend. In addition, Iranian elits have received developmental role of states in contemporary Iran. Furthermore, the critical role of states in Iran during the Pahlavi (1925-1941), top-down modernization, specially during the economic reform-restructuring trend in post-war Iran after the 1990s, are the manifestation of developmentalism on the basis of state agency.
Although some Iranian scholars (e.g., Nabavi, 2011) have categorized Pahlavi I, and II states (1304-1357) as developmental states, and some others have compared Iranian post-war states as developmental states with some similarities with East Asian countries (Delforouz, 2014), this study’s emphasis is on the main features of developmental states, including developmentalist elites, developmentalist beurucracy, and control of economic resources via state, which are the absent circles in contemporary Iran development process.
The absence of above features describe why even with the overwhelming presence of the given trends like Pahlavi’s state-building that has been emerged from dependent formation during the 19th century in Iran, state-building continuity in post-revelutionary Iran, the presence of developmental militia groups, and economic pragmatism of a state owning all the natural resources, yet, a new developmental state has not been flourished, instead we face with the unique formation of beurucracy and authoritarianism that were made during the 20th century in Iran.
5. Discussion and Conclusion
Brazil, Malaysia, Turkey, and Iran are new developmental states models refer to developmental states transferability, international structural context, and historical-global trends. Although, the main features of new developmental states are absent in Iran, international structural context behind these ideal types are more or less the same. Since the 1990s, international trends and contexts like, globalization, the end of Cold War, and East Asian financial crisis have provided necessary conditions for Develomental state Model for transfering to the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America. Thus, the global socio-economic environment changes along with the pressure to the democratization have introduced “Global South” including Iran, Turkey, South Africa and Brazil and others as the new cases of developmental states. On the other hand, the demise of the Eastern Block and entering the Post-Cold War era as a determinative variable have created post-socialist DS in China. Just like former generation of DSes, new developmental states are affected by international determinators and their geographical, social, and historical trends.

Keywords

State; Developmental state; Features; Transferability; New Developmental State

References

1. ابراهیم‌بای سلامی، غ. ح. (1386). مناسبات دولت و جامعه از دیدگاه جامعه‌شناسی. نامة علوم اجتماعی، (٣٠)، 26-1.

2. احمد تشکینی، ا. (1388). بررسی تطبیقی نظام برنامه‌ریزی توسعه در ایران و کشورهای منتخب. تهران: وزارت بازرگانی، معاونت برنامه‌ریزی و امور اقتصادی.

3. اسکاپل، ت. (1376). دولت‌ها و انقلاب‌های اجتماعی. (م. رویین‌تن، مترجم). تهران: سروش.

4. اسلامی، آ. و قاسم‌نژاد، م. (1388). دولت توسعه‌گرا. مرکز مطالعات تکنولوژی دانشگاه صنعتی شریف.

5. اشرف، ا. (1359). موانع تاریخی رشد سرمایه‌داری در ایران: دورة قاجاریه. تهران:انتشارات زمینه.

6. اشرف، ا. و عزیزی، ع. (1388). طبقات اجتماعی دولت و انقلاب در ایران. (س. ترابی فارسانی، مترجم). تهران: انتشارات نیلوفر.

7. اوانز، پ. (1380). توسعه یا چپاول: نقش دولت در تحول صنعتی. (ع. زندباف و ع. مخبر). چاپ دوم. تهران: طرح نو.

8. آبراهامیان، ی. (1389 الف). تاریخ ایران مدرن. (ا. فتاحی، مترجم). تهران: نشر مرکز.

9. آبراهامیان، ی. (1389 ب). ایران بین دوانقلاب. (ا. گل‌محمدی، مترجم). تهران: نشر مرکز.

10. بشیریه، ح. (1384). جامعه‌شناسی سیاسی. تهران: نشر نی.

11. بهکیش، م. (1382). اقتصاد ایران در بستر جهانی‌شدن. تهران: نشر نی.

12. پوجی، ج. (1384). تکوین دولت مدرن (درآمدی جامعه‌شناختی). (ف. مؤمنی و ف. مؤمنی، مترجمان). تهران: انتشارات جهاد دانشگاهی.

13. پیت، ر؛ هارت ویک، ا. (1384). نظریه‌های توسعه. (م. ازکیا، مترجم). تهران: نشر لویه.

14. ترابی، ی.، روشنی، م. (1388). اجماع نظر نخبگان سیاسی و توسعه در جمهوری اسلامی ایران. تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه امام صادق (ع).

15. تفضلی، ف. (1386). تاریخ عقاید اقتصادی. تهران: نشر نی.

16. توکلی، ا. (1392). روایت احمد توکلی از نقش سپاه در اقتصاد ایران. تهران: پارسینه.

17. جلایی‌پور، ح. ر. (1392)، جامعه‌شناسی ایران. تهران: نشر نی.

18. چمنکار، م. ج. (1389). مأموریت نظامی‌‌گری دولت پهلوی دوم و تأثیرات آن بر سیاست خارجی ایران. فصل‌نامة پژوهش‌های تاریخی، 46 (4). 53-26.

19. حاجی‌یوسفی، ا. م. (1378). دولت، نفت و توسعة اقتصادى در ایران. تهران: انتشارات مرکز اسناد انقلاب اسلامی.

20. حافظیان، م. ح. (1383). نقش ساختار دولت و ماهیت نخبگان در توسعه‌یافتگی خاورمیانه: بررسی مقایسه‌ای ایران، ترکیه و مصر. رسالة منتشرنشدۀ دکتری دانشگاه تهران. تهران، ایران.

21. حافظیان، م. ح. (1387). دولت توسعه‌گرا و سیاست خارجی، تجربة ایران، ترکیه و مصر، در کتاب: سیاست خارجی توسعه‌گرا. تهران: انتشارات پژوهشکدة مطالعات راهبردی.

22. دلفروز، م. ت. (1393). دولت و توسعة اقتصادی، اقتصاد سیاسی توسعه در ایران و دولت‌های توسعه‌گرا. تهران: انتشارات آگاه.

23. رضایی، م. (1391). فدرالیسم اقتصادی. تهران: مؤسسة انتشاراتی کمیل.

24. ریگین، چ. (1388). روش تطبیقی. (م. فاضلی، مترجم). تهران: نشر آگه.

25. زیباکلام، ص. (1382). ما چگونه ما شدیم (ریشه‌یابی علل عقب‌ماندگی ایران). تهران: انتشارات روزنه

26. طالبان، م. (1388). روش‌شناسی مطالعات انقلاب با تأکید بر انقلاب اسلامی ایران. تهران: مؤسسة چاپ و نشر عروج.

27. غنینژاد، م. (1382). تجددطلبی و توسعه در ایران معاصر. تهران: نشر مرکز.

28. فوران، ج. (1383). مقاومت‌شکننده: تاریخ تحولات اجتماعی ایران. (ا. تدین، مترجم). تهران: مؤسسة خدمات فرهنگی رسا.

29. کاتوزیان، ه. ( 1384). اقتصاد سیاسی ایران. تهران: نشر مرکز.

30. کاتوزیان، ه. (1387). نه مقاله در جامعه‌شناسی تاریخی ایران. تهران: نشر مرکز.

31. گیدنز، آ. (1384). چشم‌اندازهای جهانی. (م. ر. جلالی‌پور، مترجم). تهران: نشر طرح نو.

32. لفت ویچ، آ. (1382). دموکراسی و توسعه. (ا. علیقلیان و ا. خاکباز، مترجمان). تهران: انتشارات طرح نو.

33. میردال، گ. (1384). درام آسیایی. (م. امیری، مترجم). تهران: انتشارات امیرکبیر.

34. نیلی، م. (1382). خلاصه مطالعات طرح استراتژی توسعة صنعتی کشور. تهران: انتشارات علمی دانشگاه صنعتی شریف.

35. واترز، م. (1379). جهانی‌شدن. (ا. مردانی گیوی و س. مؤیدی، مترجمان). تهران: انتشارات مدیریت صنعتی.

36. وبر، م. (1384). اقتصاد و جامعه. (ع. منوچهری، مترجم). تهران: انتشارات سمت.

37. وبر، م. (1387). دین، قدرت و جامعه. (ا. تدین، مترجم). تهران: انتشارات هرمس.

38. وینسنت، آ. (1376). نظریه‌های دولت. (ح. بشیریه، مترجم). تهران: نشر نی.

39. Aghaie, K. S., &Marashi, A. (2014). Rethinking Iranian nationalism and modernity Middle Eastern studies. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

40. Alavi, H. (1972). The state in post-colonial societies: Pakistan and Bangladesh. New Left Review, 74, 59-81.

41. Alizadeh, P., &Hakimian, H. (Eds.). (2016). Iran and the global economy: Petro populism, Islam and economic sanctions. London, England: Routledge.

42. Amsden, A. (1989). Asia's next giant: South Korea and late industrialisation. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

43. Amsden, A., DiCaprio, A., & Robinson, J. (2009). Aligning elites with development. WIDER Angle newsletter, Retrieved from http:// www. rrojasdatabank. info/ dev0031b.htm

44. Dovlatabadi, M. R., &Pazookian, A. (2014). The study of globalization effects on political development of Turkey republic. Journal of Applied Environmental and Biological Science, 4(5), 184-193.

45. Evans, P. (1994). Embedded autonomy: State and industrial transformation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

46. Evans, P. (1998). Transferable lessons? Re‐examining the institutional prerequisites of East Asian economic policies. The Journal of Development Studies, 34(6), 66-86.

47. Evans, P. (2010). Constructing the 21st century developmental state: Potentialities and pitfalls. In O. Edigheji (Ed.), Constructing a democratic developmental state in South Africa: Potentials and challenges (pp. 37-58). Cape Town, South Africa: HSRC Press.

48. Farazmand, A. (1989). The state, bureaucracy, and revolution in modern Iran: Agrarian reforms and regime politics. Greenwood, Canada: Praeger.

49. Farazmand, A. (2002). Administrative reform in developing nations. Greenwood, IN: Greenwood Publishing Group.

50. Gerschenkron, A. (1962). Economic backwardness in historical perspective. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

51. Ghomeshi, R. (2011). Dynamics of political development – state -society relations. Retrieved from http:// shodhganga .inflibnet. ac. In / bitstream / 10603/ 2028:

52. Hayashi, S. (2010). The developmental state in the era of globalization: Beyond the Northeast Asian model of political economy. The Pacific Review, 23(1), 45-69.

53. Henley, D. (2011, May). Three principles of successful development strategy: Outreach, urgency, expediency. Paper presented at the 3rd Plenary Tracking Development Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

54. Heper, M. (1984). Atatürk and civil bureaucracy. In J. M. Landau (Ed.), Ataturk and the modernization of Turkey (pp. 89-97). Leiden, Netherlands: Westview Press.

55. Johnson, C. (1982). MITI and the Japanese miracle.Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

56. Johnson, C. (1994). Japan: Who governs? – The rise of the developmental state. London, England: W. W. Norton & Company.

57. Kamrava, M. (2001). The civil society discourse. British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 28(2), 165-185.

58. Kazemi, F. (2001). Civil society and Iranian politics. In A. R. Norton (Ed.), Civil society in the Middle East (Vol. 2, pp. 119-152). Köln, Germany: Brill.

59. Kees van Donge, J. (2009). Tracking development in south East Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa: The primacy of policy. Retrieved from http:// www.trackingdevelopment.net/resources/docs/TD%20in%20SA%20and%20SSA_The%20primacy%20of%20policy.pdf.

60. Khavarinejad, A. (2003). The estimation of gross domestic product of Iran (1315-1337). Tehran, Iran: Monetary and Banking Research Academy, Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

61. Kohli, A. (2001).State capacity for development.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

62. Kohli, A. (2004). State-directed development: Political power and industrialization in the global periphery. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

63. Leftwich, A. (2000). States of development: On the primacy of politics in development. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.

64. Leftwich, A. (2010). Beyond institutions: Rethinking the role of leaders, elites and coalitions in the institutional formation of developmental states and strategies. Forum for Development Studies, 37(1), 93-111.

65. List, F. (1909). The national system of political economy (S. S. Lloyd Trans.). London, England: Longmans, Green Co.

66. Mahoney, J., &Rueschemeyer, D. (Eds.). (2003). Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences. Cambridge: England: Cambridge University Press.

67. O'Donnell, G. (2001). Bureaucratic authoritarianism. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

68. Przeworski, A., & Henry, T. (1970). The logic of comparative social inquiry. London, England: Wiley-Interscience.

69. Rauch, J. E., & Evans, P. B. (2000). Bureaucratic structure and bureaucratic performance in less developed countries. Journal of Public Economics, 75(1), 49-71.

70. Routley, L. (2012). Developmental states: A review of the literature (Working paper). Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=2141837

71. Sandbrook, R. (2007). Social democracy in the global periphery. Cambridge: England: Cambridge University Press.

72. Savory, R. M. (1978). Social development in Iran during the Pahlavi era. In G. Lenczowski (Ed.), Iran under the Pahlavis (pp. 85-127). Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press.

73. Sojoodi, S., MohseniZonuzi, F., &MehinAslani Nia, N. (2012). The role of infrastructure in promoting economic growth in Iran. Iranian Economic Review, 16(32), 111-132.

74. Tachau, F. (1975). Introduction: Political elites and political development in the Middle East. In F. Tachau (Ed.), Political elites and political development in the Middle East (pp. 1-22). ,Cambridge: England: Schenkman Publishing Company.

75. Tilly, C. (1975). The formation of national state in Western Europe. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

76. Valores, C. (2012). The return of economic nationalism and rising investment risk in Brazil. Retrieved fromhttps:// seekingalpha.com/ article/ 565771- the- return- of - economic- nationalism- and- rising- investment - risk- in- brazil

77. Wong, J. (2004). The adaptive developmental state in East Asia. Journal of East Asian Studies, 4(3), 345-362.

78. Young, C. (1988). The African colonial state and its political legacy. In D. Rothchild& N. Chazan (Eds.), The precarious balance: State and society in Africa (pp. 25-66). Boulder, NV: Westview Press.