The concept of the state in relation to development has been analyzed under different theories. First of all the state refers to a modern and western way to operate under a unify authority in each field in order to achieve the interest of the whole society. The state’s principal charge was to accelerate industrialization, modernizing agriculture, providing infrastructure that are necessary for the urbanization and improve living condition (i.e. health, education, welfare). Growth-oriented states pursued their commitment by developing trade and industry with well-designed, consistent, and thoroughly implemented policies. Specific policy measures varied but were generally aimed at easing ...view middle of the document...
Unfortunately, for a variety of historical reasons, this distinction between the public and the private realms was never well established in a number of developing country states, especially African states. As a result, a number of distorted states emerged with weakly centralized and barely legitimate authority structures, personal leaders unconstrained by norms or institutions, and bureaucracies of poor quality. These states are labeled here as neo-patrimonial because, despite the façade of a modern state, public officeholders tend to treat public resources as their personal patrimony. These are therefore not really modern rational-legal states. Whether they are organized as a nominal democracy or as a dictatorship, state-led development under the auspices of neo-patrimonial states has often resulted in disaster, mainly because both public goals and capacities to pursue specific tasks in these settings have repeatedly been undermined by personal and narrow group interests. Of the cases I analyzed, Nigeria best exemplified this ideal-typical tendency. British colonialism in Nigeria created a highly distorted state that readily evolved into a neo-patrimonial and ineffective set of political organizations. Britain ruled Nigeria on the cheap, expending as little energy as possible. Within the shell of a modern colonial state and cloaked in the ideology of indirect rule, the British essentially utilized various "traditional" rulers to impose order. Colonialism in Nigeria thus reinforced a pattern of patrimonial and personal rule that failed to centralize authority, to develop an effective civil service, and relatedly, to develop even such minimal political capacities as the ability to collect direct taxes. The public realm that came into being was barely demarcated from private and sectional interests in terms of both culture and organization. After the Second World War, when the colonial state's access to resources grew and the state became more and more involved in the economy, these distorted beginnings were further accentuated, as the state became further enmeshed in particularistic and personal networks. The political elite of sovereign Nigeria were never able to overcome the original deficiencies of state construction and create a system of bad governance in which corruption reign. Consequently they simply went from crisis to crisis, both controlling and wasting the society's scarce developmental resources. The Indian professor Mamdani sustained that colonialism in Africa lead the states toward a creation of a “bifurcated state” in which the urban area is govern by a legal rational basis but the countryside is left to the African leaders that leaving the states partially undemocratised (DV1171,2790171, T.Forsytg, E.Grenn, J.Lunn)
Secondly, developmental state is a politic and economic system where economy thrives by competitive means in a market structure, but under the surveillance and supervision of an interventionist government. This...
