Downloads

https://doi.org/10.58195/emi.v2i2.95
Oriol, E. de C., & Martins, H. F. (2023). New Developmentalism: What Do We Know and Where Are We Going?. Economics & Management Information, 2(2), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.58195/emi.v2i2.95
Volume 2, Issue 2, December 2023
Copyright (c) 2023 Ettore de Carvalho Oriol, Martins
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

New Developmentalism: What Do We Know and Where Are We Going?

Studies focusing on the theory of New Developmentalism have been growing in recent years. This has happened since the great crisis of Neoliberalism in 2008, which pointed to the exhaustion of the financial-rentier Neoliberal model as a solution to issues related to the development of countries. Based on this diagnosis, we proposed a bibliometric analysis that shows the past, the present, and the future possibilities (trends) within the field of New Developmentalism. For the execution of this Bibliometrics, we searched for the articles published and indexed in the Web of Science and Scopus databases using the search term "New Developmentalism". The result pointed to 749 published articles. The search used the term in all the search fields available in the databases, excluding no possibilities. These data were treated in “Biblioshiny” within the RStudio software and the results were analyzed to generate a mapping of the field of study. The results of this study show that this is still a new field of study and that it needs a lot of research to reach maturity. An even more evident gap is the scarcity of studies that address the macroeconomic prices important for the growth of national economies, as pointed out by the New Developmentalism Theory of Brasser-Pereira. In this gap, we identify arguments contrary to the theory that need to be addressed and empirically researched to be accepted or refuted. By working this gap, we would bring light to points not yet explored and enrich the discussions. The problem of the role of the State as a promoter of the conditions for the economic development of countries, in contrast to the Neoliberalism that advocates a minimal State, is also an aspect little explored by empirical articles, requiring further study. Another important point that needs to be addressed is the incorporation of the ecological and social agenda, especially that of income distribution in the studies of the application of the New Developmentalism Theory. In this gap, the inclusion of the third sector in the New Developmentalism Theory as an agent distinct from the State and the Market could be a solution and an innovation. The third sector's principle is to promote and bring about structural changes in society that are very important for the economic and social development of countries. This inclusion helps in the expansion of income distribution and social development processes that the State, based on rules (Bureaucracy), and the Market, based on profit (competition), are unable to accomplish. We also identify the need for a more particularized delineation of the identification of New Developmentalism Theory, generating a label that does not confuse with other theories. Thus, we seek to contribute to the field of study by showing the advances made so far and pointing out directions that can be followed by other researchers who wish to expand the study of New Developmentalism Theory.

new developmentalism bibliometrics economic growth industrial policy

References

  1. Bresser-Pereira LC. New Developmentalism: Development Macroeconomics for Middle-Income Countries. Cambridge Journal of Economics 2019a; 2019: 1–18. DOI: 10.1093/cje/bez063.
  2. Kohli A. States and Economic Development. Brazilian Journal of political Economy 2009; 29(2): 212–227.
  3. Carroll T, Jarvis DSL. The New Politics of Development: Citizens, Civil Society, and the Evolution of Neoliberal Development Policy. Globalizations 2015; 12(3): 281–304. DOI:10.1080/14747731.2015.1016301.
  4. Kliass P, Salama P. Globalisation in Brazil, Culprit or Scapegoat? Lusotopie 2007; 14: 109–132.
  5. Bresser-Pereira LC. Teoria Novo-Desenvolvimentista: Uma Síntese. Cadernos do Desenvolvimento 2016a; 11(19): 145–165.
  6. Bresser-Pereira LC, Araújo EC, Peres SC. An Alternative to the Middle-Income Trap. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 2020; 53: 294–312. DOI: 10.1016/j.strueco.2019.11.007.
  7. Güven AB. The IMF, the World Bank, and the Global Economic Crisis: Exploring Paradigm Continuity. Development and Change 2012; 43(4): 869–898. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-7660.2012.01781.x.
  8. Bresser-Pereira LC. From Classical Developmentalism and Post-Keynesian Macroeconomics to New Developmentalism. Brazilian Journal of Political Economy 2019b; 39(2): 187–210.
  9. Capraro S, Panico C. Monetary Policy in Liberalized Financial Markets: The Mexican Case. Review of Keynesian Economics 2021; 9(1): 109–138.
  10. Da Silva PP, Bandeira JVVM. The political economy of neoliberalism in Brazil: towards a Polanyian approach. Third World Quarterly 2021; 42(6): 1176–1195. DOI: 10.1080/01436597.2021.1877126.
  11. Bresser-Pereira LC. Brazil’s Quasi-Stagnation and East-Asia Growth: A New Developmental Explanation. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 2021; 58: 500–508. DOI: 10.1016/j.strueco.2021.06.01
  12. Bresser-Pereira LC. Quase-Estagnação do Brasil e o novo Desenvolvimentismo. Brazilian Journal of Political Economy 2022; 42(2): 1–20.
  13. Feijo C; Araujo EC, Bresser-Pereira LC. Política monetária no Brasil em Tempos de Pandemia. Brazilian Journal of Political Economy 2022; 42(10): 150–171. DOI: 10.1590/0101-31572022-3353.
  14. Bresser-Pereira LC. Secular Stagnation, Low Growth, and Financial Instability. International Journal of Political Economy 2019c; 48(1): 21–40. DOI: 10.1080/08911916.2018.1550949
  15. Donthu N, Kumar S, Mukherjee D, Pandey N, Lim WM. How to Conduct a Bibliometric Analysis: An Overview and Guidelines. Journal of Business Research 2021; 133: 285–296.
  16. Oh Y, Yoon J, Lee J-D. Evolutionary Patterns of Renewable Energy Technology Development in East Asia (1990–2010). Sustainability 2016; 8(8): 721. DOI: 10.3390/su8080721.
  17. Mathai MV, Isenhour C, Stevis D, Vergragt P, Bengtsson M, Lorek S, Mortensen LF, Coscieme L, Scott D, Waheed A, Alfredsson E. The Political Economy of (Un)Sustainable Production and Consumption: A Multidisciplinary Synthesis for Research and Action. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2021; 167: 105265. DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.1052.
  18. Basri C, Hill H. Making Economic Policy in a Democratic Indonesia: The First Two Decades. Asian Economic Policy Review 202; 15(2): 214–234. DOI: 10.1111/aepr.12299.
  19. Oreiro JL, Manarin D’Agostini LL, Gala P. Deindustrialization, Economic Complexity and Exchange Rate Overvaluation: The Case of Brazil (1998-2017). PSL Quarterly Review 2020; 73(295): 313–341
  20. Bresser-Pereira L C. O Novo Desenvolvimentismo e a Ortodoxia Convencional. São Paulo em Perspectiva 2006; 20(3): 5–24.
  21. Bresser-Pereira LC. Why Economics Should Be a Modest and Reasonable Science. Journal of Economic Issues 2012; 46(2): 291–302. DOI: 10.2753/jei00213624460204.
  22. Capriata W, Souza LF. The Exchange Rate in Orthodox, Keynesian and New Developmentalism Theoretical Models: a Literature Review. Brazilian Journal of Political Economy 2021; 41(2): 220–235. DOI:10.1590/0101-315720213126.
  23. Marconi N, Reis CF de B, & Araújo, E. C. de. Manufacturing and Economic Development: The Actuality of Kaldor’s First and Second Laws. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 2016; 37: 75–89. DOI: 10.1016/j.strueco.2015.12.002.
  24. Souza KCQ, Silva GJC. Real Exchange Rate and Brazilian Industry Productivity in the Long Run: Theory, Model and Evidence for the Recent Period. Brazilian Journal of Political Economy 2021; 41(4): 657–678. DOI: 10.1590/0101-31572021-3158.
  25. Cunha AM, Lelis MTC, Linck P. Business Cycles Fluctuations and Commodities Prices: Evidence for Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Political Economy 2021; 41(3): 466–486. DOI: 10.1590/0101-31572021-3164.
  26. Bresser-Pereira LC. The Dutch Disease and Its Neutralization: A Ricardian Approach. Revista de Economia Política 2008; 28(1): 47–71. DOI: 10.1590/S0101- 31572008000100003.
  27. Guarini G, Oreiro JL. Uma Visão Ecológica do Novo Desenvolvimentismo: Uma Proposta de Integração. Brazilian Journal of Political Economy 2022; 42(1): 244255.
  28. Doner RF, Schneider BR. The Middle-Income Trap. World Politics 2016; 68(04): 608–644. DOI: 10.1017/s0043887116000095.
  29. Porto TC, Lee K, Mani S. The US–Ireland–India in the Catch-up Cycles in IT Services: MNCs, Indigenous Capabilities and the Roles of Macroeconomic Variables. Eurasian Business Review 2021; 11(1): 59–82. DOI: 10.1007/s40821-020-00177-3.
  30. Aria M, Cuccurullo C Bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics 2017; 11(4); 959-975. DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007
  31. Kumar R. Bringing the Developmental State Back in: Explaining South Korea’s Successful Management of COVID-19. Third World Quarterly, 2021; 42(7): 1397–1416. DOI: 10.1080/01436597.2021.1903311.
  32. Brown E. Still Their Backyard? The US and Post-Mitch Development Strategies in Nicaragua. Political Geography 2000; 19(5): 543–572. DOI: 10.1016/s09626298(00)00003-2.
  33. Bresser-Pereira LC, Oreiro JL, Marconi N. Developmental Macroeconomics: New Developmentalism as a Growth Strategy; Routledge: London, UK, 2014.
  34. Chang H-J. Chutando a Escada: a Estratégia do Desenvolvimento em Perspectiva Histórica; Editora Unesp: São Paulo, Brazil, 2004.
  35. Chang H-J. Institutions and Economic Development: Theory, Policy and History. Journal of Institutional Economics 2010; 7(04): 473–498. DOI: 10.1017/s1744137410000378.
  36. Warburton E. Jokowi and the New Developmentalism. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies 2016; 52(3): 297–320.
  37. Cardozo SA, Martins H. New Developmentalism, Public Policies, and Regional Inequalities in Brazil: The Advances and Limitations of Lula's and Dilma's Governments. Latin American Perspectives 2020; 47(2). DOI: 0094582X19888507.
  38. De Paula LF, Fritz B, Prates DM. Keynes at the Periphery: Currency Hierarchy and Challenges for Economic Policy in Emerging Economies. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 2017; 40(2): 183–202. DOI:10.1080/01603477.2016.1252267.
  39. Ban C. Brazil’s Liberal Neo-Developmentalism: New Paradigm or Edited Orthodoxy? Review of International Political Economy 2013; 20(2): 298–331. DOI: 10.1080/09692290.2012.660183.
  40. Emich KJ, Kumar S, Lu L, Norder K, Pandey N. Mapping 50 Years of Small Group Research Through Small Group Research. Small Group Research 2020; 51(6): 659–699.
  41. Guzman M, Ocampo JA, Stiglitz JE. Real Exchange Rate Policies for Economic Development. World Development 2018; 110: 51–62. DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.05.01
  42. Schlogl L, Kim K. After Authoritarian Technocracy: The Space for Industrial Policy-Making in Democratic Developing Countries. Third World Quarterly 2021; 44(9): 1–22. DOI: 10.1080/01436597.2021.1984876.
  43. Thurbon E, Weiss L. Economic Statecraft at the Frontier: Korea’S Drive for Intelligent Robotics. Review of International Political Economy 2019; 28(1): 103–127. DOI: 10.1080/09692290.2019.165508.
  44. Oliveira FA. Lost and Found: Bourgeois Dependency Theory and the Forgotten Roots of Neodevelopmentalism. Latin American Perspectives 2022; 49(1): 36–56.
  45. Hartmann D, Zagato L, Gala P, Pinheiro FL. Why Did Some Countries Catch-up, While Others Got Stuck in the Middle? Stages of Productive Sophistication and Smart Industrial Policies. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 2021; 58: 1–13. DOI: 10.1016/j.strueco.2021.04.007.
  46. Médici F, Mario A, Fiorito A. Questioning the Effect of the Real Exchange Rate on Growth: New Evidence from Mexico. Review of Keynesian Economics 2021; 9(2): 253–269. DOI: 10.4337/roke.2021.02.05
  47. Torres-Filho ET, Martins NM. Survival Constraint and Financial Regulation: A New Minskyian Approach. Brazilian Journal of Political Economy 2022; 42(1): 88–104.DOI: 10.1590/0101-31572022-3179.
  48. Ordonez JA, Jakob M, Steckel JC, Fünfgeld A. Coal, Power and Coal Powered Politics in Indonesia. Environmental Science & Policy 2021; 123: 44–57.
  49. Setijadi C. The Pandemic as Political Opportunity: Jokowi’s Indonesia in the Time of Covid-19. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies 2021; 57(3): 297–320, DOI: 10.1080/00074918.2021.2004342.
  50. Warburton E. Indonesia in 2021: A Year of Crisis, Development, and Democratic Decline. Asian Survey 2022; 62 (1): 93–104. DOI: 10.1525/as.2022.62.1.09.
  51. Blecker RA. The Debate Over "Thirlwall's Law": Balance-of-Payments-Constrained Growth Reconsidered. European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention 2016; 13(3): 275–290. DOI: 10.4337/ejeep.2016.03.03.
  52. Garcia VC. Exchange Rate and Economic Growth in Mexico. Contad. Adm [online] 2021; 66(3): 00016. DOI: 10.22201/fca.24488410e.2021.3116.
  53. Bresser-Pereira LC. Reflecting on New Developmentalism and Classical Developmentalism. Review of Keynesian Economics 2016b; 4(3): 331–352. DOI: 10.4337/roke.2016.03.07.
  54. Barredo-Zuriarrain J. Credit-Fueled Demand and Shrinking Aggregate Supply: A Study on the Hyperinflation in Venezuela. Review of Political Economy 2022. DOI: 10.1080/09538259.2022.2037932.
  55. Burle J, Carvalho L. Omitted-Variable Bias in Demand-Regime Estimations: The Role of Household Credit and Wage Inequality in Brazil. Review of Keynesian Economics 2021; 9(3): 368–393. DOI: 10.4337/roke.2021.03.04.
  56. Palley T. The Economics of New Developmentalism: A critical assessment. Inv. Econ [online] 2021; 80(317): 3–33. DOI: 10.22201/fe.01851667p.2021.317.79804.
  57. Medeiros CA. A Structuralist and Institutionalist Developmental Assessment of and Reaction to New Developmentalism. Review of Keynesian Economics, 2020; 8(2): 147–167.
  58. Ribeiro RSM, McCombie JSL, Lima GT. Exchange Rate, Income Distribution and Technical Change in a Balance-of-Payments Constrained Growth Model. Review of Political Economy 2016; 28(4): 545–565. DOI: 10.1080/09538259.2016.1205819.
  59. Passanezi PMS, Guariente DAC, Freitas ACB, Monteiro WO. A Influência do Terceiro Setor para Economia Brasileira. Annais do XIV Encontro Latino Americano de Iniciação Científica e X Encontro Latino Americano de Pós-Graduação; Universidade do Vale do Paraíba: São Paulo, Brazil, 2020.
  60. Draibe S. As Políticas Sociais e o Neoliberalismo. Revista USP 1993; 17: 86–101.
  61. Huck J, Al R, Rathi D. Encontrar Soluções de GC Para Uma Organização sem Fins Lucrativos Baseada em Voluntários. Vine 2011; 41(1): 26–40.
  62. Le QN, Tuamsuk K. Knowledge and Technology Resources for Knowledge Management Practices of Nonprofit Organizations in Thailand. Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice 2021; 9(3): 42–55. DOI: 10.1633/JISTAP.2021.9.3.4.
  63. Bahmani S, Galindo MÁ, Méndez MT. Non-Profit Organizations, Entrepreneurship, Social Capital and Economic Growth. Small Business Economy 2012; 38: 271–281.
  64. Pennerstorfer A, Rutherford AC. Measuring Growth of the Nonprofit Sector: The Choice of Indicator Matters. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 2019; 48(2): 440–456. DOI: 10.1177/0899764018819874
  65. Martins HF. Em Busca de uma Teoria da Burocracia Pública Não-Estatal: Política e Administração no Terceiro Setor. Revista de Administração Contemporânea – RAC 1998; 2(3): 109–128.
  66. Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil. Available online: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/constituicao/constituicao.htm (accessed on 9 August 2023).
  67. Salamon LM, Sokolowski SW. Beyond Nonprofits: Re-conceptualizing the Third Sector. Voluntas 2016; 27: 1515–1545. DOI: 10.1007/s11266-016-9726-z.
  68. Vasilyeva T, Lyeonov S, Adamicková I, Bagmet K. Institutional Quality of Social Sector: The Essence and Measurements. Economics & Sociology 2018; 11(2): 248–262. DOI: 10.14254/2071789X.2018/11-2/17.

Supporting Agencies

  1. Funding: Not applicable.