The concept of “late developers” was first formed under the framework of development economics in the 1950s, mainly aimed at the industrialization of the newly independent colonial and semi-colonial countries in the post-war international order. With modern tasks. Since the industrial revolution in the 18th century, European and American countries have relied on the powerful material productivity brought about by industrialization to shape the world order dominated by them. More than 200 years later, all late-developing countries must find a way out under this order, or promote industrialization, strive for a favorable position in the global division of labor system, or abandon industrialization and become a vassal of the Western industrial system.
Today, with the idea of a new, open and win-win world order, China has proposed the “Belt and Road Initiative” initiative. To “go out” and establish closer cooperation and dialogue with other countries, China must first understand the development roads and development concepts of many late-developing countries along the Belt and Road. This requires us to go beyond the limitations of the original regional research and go deep into the economic, social and institutional contexts of each country to understand their respective modern road choices. To this end, the cover topic of this issue, “The Path of Development of the Post-National Development” focuses on the tortuous course of the modernization of the late-stage countries, trying to show how countries can explore modernization on the basis of their existing social, political, economic and cultural traditions. challenge. On the other hand, in the face of the turbulence and turmoil of the current world order, reflecting on the overall development path of the post-development country is also a preparation for knowledge and theory in order to meet the possible changes in the future.
Studies by Mao Keji and Wang Fei on India and Brazil show that both countries have experienced premature “de-industrialization”. In the context of the Asian financial crisis, Brazil has prematurely chosen financial liberalization in its macroeconomic policies, which has forced it to swallow the hardships of industrial upgrading today; India is in land expropriation, labor systems, interest groups. Under the heavy resistance of other aspects, it has to embark on the industrial-intensive and service-oriented industrial road. Both authors pointed out that for the late-developing countries, only the development of the real economy can take advantage of the cheap labor costs in the country, solve the import dependence on industrial manufactured goods, and provide sufficient employment opportunities for the domestic population. The advancement of society provides continuous motivation.
Zhou Yuyan and Lu Sizhen provided two successful cases in the study of Ethiopia and Chile. Ethiopia is a new star of African economic development in recent years. The model of “democratic developmental state” explored on the one hand caters to the “democratic” conditions proposed by Western aid countries, and on the other hand combines the national conditions of the country with the experience of East Asian development countries. Become a sample of African developmental countries. As a typical resource-based country, Chile has successfully explored the “Chile model” and achieved “medium” through the perfect market and democratic system construction since the 1990s, when Latin America is generally caught in the “resource curse”. The leap of income traps.
The late-developing countries not only need to succumb to the road of industrialization, but also strive to deal with the complex traditions and reality of their own countries and incorporate them into the modern national state system. Sun Yunxi’s research on Indonesia shows a serious challenge for a late-developing country to build national identity: although Indonesia has formed a dual-track identity of “nationality” and “local tribe” in the process of nation-building, as a product of compromise, this mechanism The fragile balance of construction is easily broken, and the construction of its ethnic identity is still blocked and long.
Since the 1990s, not only Western countries have believed that many non-Western countries also believe that the “market economy + democratic politics” represented by the “Washington Consensus” is the only development path for the late-developing countries. However, later history proves that this view underestimates the complexity of reality. As Mao Keji said, industrialization is by no means a single economic issue, but a comprehensive challenge involving social, political and economic conditions. The industrialization of late-developing countries is by no means the universalization and “necessary” logic of the “natural” history of Western industrialization. Deduction, but a struggle that requires full play of subjective initiative. Today, when the Western system itself is in deep crisis, the late-developing countries have no way to learn, and the road can only explore for themselves. This requires us to reflect on the development path of the developing countries as a whole and draw valuable experience from them.