Cover -- Acknowledgement -- Foreword -- Table of contents -- List of Abbreviations -- List of Tables -- List of Figures -- 1 Introduction -- 1.1 Research scope -- 1.1.1 Central Asia after 20 years of transition -- 1.1.2 The East Asian miracle and its relevance for Central Asia -- 1.1.3 Research questions and the relevant unit of analysis -- 1.2 Theoretical Framework -- 1.3 Ontological and methodological considerations -- 1.4 Outline of the study -- PART I: SETTING THE FRAMEWORK -- 2 The state from the perspective of economic theory -- 2.1 NPE and NIE as extensions of neoclassical economics -- 2.2 The Fundamentals of the NIE -- 2.2.1 Objectives and Methodology -- 2.2.2 Institutional change and its drivers -- 2.3 Institutions, the state, and the path of development -- 2.3.1 Enforcement and interplay of institutions -- 2.3.2 Informal institutions, ideology, and discontinuous institutional change -- 3 East Asia and the developmental state in the literature: perspectives and disagreements -- 3.1 Methodology and research focus of the developmental state literature -- 3.2 The key issues of the developmental state literature -- 3.2.1 Economic policies in East Asia: the controversial role of the state -- 3.2.2 Effective governance as a prerequisite for the developmental state -- 3.2.3 Conditions for the emergence of a developmental state -- 4 The developmental state and economic theory: implications, theoretical lineage, and the need for further research -- 4.1 Varying models and definitions -- 4.2 Toward a typology of states -- 4.3 The theoretical lineage and implications of the developmental state argument -- 4.4 Conclusions and the need for further research -- PART II: THE EAST ASIAN DEVELOPMENTAL STATES FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE NIE -- 5 Institutions and policies of developmental states: a comparative analysis.

5.1 Methodology and objectives of the case studies -- 5.2 Japan as the archetype of the developmental state -- 5.2.1 Phases of institutional development -- 5.2.1.1 From the onset of the Meiji Restoration to World War II -- 5.2.1.2 Institutional change during the war and occupation period -- 5.2.1.3 Institutional change during the post-war miracle -- 5.2.2 Conclusions from the institutional development of Japan -- 5.3 The industrialization of South Korea and Taiwan -- 5.3.1 Phases of institutional development -- 5.3.1.1 The institutional heritage of Japanese colonialism -- 5.3.1.2 Institutional developments from the end of the Second World War up through the early 1960s -- 5.3.1.3 The reorientation of economic policy in the 1960s -- 5.3.1.4 The maturing of the developmental state in South Korea and Taiwan -- 5.3.2 Conclusions from the institutional development of South Korea and Taiwan -- 5.3.2.1 Conclusions on the emergence of developmental states -- 5.3.2.2 Conclusions on the institutional environment of developmental states -- 5.4 Singapore: a developmental city-state? -- 5.4.1 Reasons for the emergence of different economic development strategies in Singapore and Hong Kong -- 5.4.2 The institutions of the developmental state in Singapore -- 5.4.3 Conclusions: Differences and similarities between Singapore and the Northeast Asian developmental states -- 5.5 Emerging economies in Southeast-Asia from the perspective of the developmental state concept -- 5.5.1 The relevance of the emerging Southeast Asian economies -- 5.5.2 Economic policies and institutions of the emerging Southeast Asian economies -- 5.5.2.1 Malaysia -- 5.5.2.2 Thailand -- 5.5.2.3 Indonesia -- 5.5.3 Conclusions from the institutional development of Malaysia, Thailand, and Indonesia -- 6 A new perspective on the developmental state.

6.1 The role of developmental states in the economy: balancing accumulation and allocation -- 6.2 Transaction costs as the basis of thedevelopmental state -- 6.3 The importance of reference economies -- 6.4 The evolution of developmental states and the importance of conflict -- 6.5 Conclusions: the key elements of the developmental state -- PART III: CENTRAL ASIA FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE DEVELOPMENTAL STATE CONCEPT -- 7 Economic transition in Central Asia: A short overview -- 7.1 The Russian and Soviet legacy in Central Asia -- 7.1.1 The advent of Russian colonialism -- 7.1.2 Central Asia as part of the Soviet Union -- 7.2 The development of the five Central Asian republics after independence -- 7.2.1 The initial conditions of the Central Asian republics and their economic performance after independence -- 7.2.2 The economic performance of the Central Asian republics since 2000 -- 7.3 Diverging transition strategies of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan: the importance of constraints and ideologies -- 7.3.1 Kazakhstan's path from rapid reformer to state-led capitalism -- 7.3.1.1 Political conditions -- 7.3.1.2 Government-business relations -- 7.3.1.3 The public administration -- 7.3.2 Uzbekistan: gradualism or stagnation? -- 7.3.2.1 Political conditions -- 7.3.2.2 Government-business relations -- 7.3.2.3 The public administration -- 7.4 Conclusions: the Central Asian countries in comparative perspective -- 8 Empirical study: insights on political and economic reform experiences in Central Asia -- 8.1 Objectives and design of the empirical study -- 8.2 Methodology for the analysis of interviews -- 8.3 Results of the analysis -- 8.3.1 Kazakhstan -- 8.3.1.1 The role of the state in the economy: economic policies and objectives -- 8.3.1.2 Functioning of the state-business nexus -- 8.3.1.3 Institutions of the public administration -- 8.3.2 Uzbekistan.

8.3.2.1 The role of the state in the economy: economic policies and objectives -- 8.3.2.2 Functioning of the state-business nexus -- 8.3.2.3 Institutions of the public administration -- 9 Implications from the empirical study: a discussion -- 9.1 Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan: developmental, predatory, or intermediate states? -- 9.2 Theoretical considerations on the prospects for the emergence of developmental states in Central Asia -- 10 Conclusions: Findings and limitations of the study -- References -- Appendix A: Code system research project Emerging Market Economies -- Appendix B: Information on interviewees from focus groups (a) and (b).