An Admin Scholar Presentation
Gratitude to:
Ferdous Jahan, ph.D
Professor
Department of Public Administration
University of Dhaka
Presented by:
MD. Harunur Rashid
MSS 1st Semester
Department of Public Administration
University of Dhaka
Embedded Autonomy: State & Industrial Transformation
(1995)
Peter B. Evans (1944)
Professor
University of California
Lecture Outline:
Part 1

The Concept of Embedded Autonomy (EA)
 State & Industrial Transformation: How Embedded Autonomy Look Like?
a.
Components of the state & its formation’ background
b.
Role of the state in neo-liberal economics
c.
Four types of role in industrial transformation
d.
Three types of state & variations
e.
Relationships between EA & Industrial Transformation
Part 2
 Role of the State in Industrial Transformation of Information Technology (IT) sector
 Three country experiences ( Korea, Brazil & India)
 Is the state lost its dominance due to emergence of capable IT sector ?
 Regaining the State’ Confidence & capacity, How?

Summary of the book in 5 points
 Gift box & conclusion.
Concept of Embedded Autonomy:
The word Autonomy comes from Greek word ‘autonomia’ which consists of auto-’self’
and nomos-’law’ The combined meanings is ‘one who gives oneself one’s own law’.
Whatever the meanings of autonomy, Peter Evans sees another meaning.
Autonomy denotes the corporate coherence or harmony among the state apparatus
or bureaucracy (ideal type of bureaucracy) having with informal network among them.
In other words, autonomy is the warm relationships among the state owned
organizations having with characteristics of ideal type of bureaucracy.
 We found bureaucracy as ideal type which it is endowed with following
characteristics.
1.
Merit based recruitment
2. Formal rules and regulation
3.
Hierarchy
4. Careerism
5.
Division of work
6. Impersonality
*** Informal network ( According to Durkheim-’’noncontractual elements of contract’’).
 According to Oxford Dictionary- The meaning of embedded is ‘fix (an object)
firmly and deeply in a surrounding mass.
 Evans drew attention on – embedded (ness) refers to the connectedness or ties
of the state or state apparatus with the social groups.
 Who are they (social groups)?
*Local Industrial elites
 Civil Society
 Market
 People
 Different social classes.

So, Embedded autonomy can be defined as the state (situation)
where the state apparatus or bureaucracy characterised with the
ideal type of bureaucracy having with harmony among them and
strong bondage with social groups.
 Autonomy & embeddedness, both are pre-requisite for industrial
transformation in any country. One can’t go without other.
Embedded autonomy lies in the –
 History of the country or region
 Culture
 Social structure
 State & society relationships.
Example- Aloofness from people of Bangladesh, India & Pakistan
bureaucracy.
State & Industrial Transformation: How Embedded Autonomy

Look Like?
 State which has four basic features –
a. Specific region
b. People
c. Government
d. Sovereignty
Shape of the state and its apparatus moulded by its origin, historical
backgrounds. State has inherent capacity as well as role in the process of
industrial transformation which is derived from the ‘embedded autonomy’.
The role of state is universal in any type of economy whether it is classic,
neo-liberal or mixed economy.
Therefore, state fosters the social groups as well as discriminate seemingly to
the facilitate the welfare of the people. Example- Conservation of
opportunities (quota), building sound middle class society.
Role of the State in Neo-Classical or NeoUtilitarian Economics:
 In the voice of Evans- ‘’ NeoClassical economics of a state
is essential for economic
growth, but essential state was
minimal state’’
 Having the background of
the 2nd world war- state had
dominant role in the economy
and
development.
From
1970s, role of state was going
to change due to the
emergence of neo-liberalism.

Features of the Neo-classics economy Let the market do, market will bring
equilibrium.
 Minimal state, dominant market
 State is mutual observer
 State do only rent seeking activities.
However, Evans criticize the neoutilitarian economics for undermining
the role of the state.
Four Types of the Role in Industrial Transformation:
Peter Evans argued that state involvement is important in any
industrial transformation where state facilitate the stride through
policy (greenhouse policy-BD Drug Policy in Ershad’ regime) and
promotional activities . For the sake of development, state
sometimes plays ambiguous role and preserve interests for special
groups. According to Evans, generally state plays four types of
role1.
Custodian: State provide services directly. Example- Mineral extraction,
power etc.
2.
Demiurge: State takes lead in transformation and minimal role of local
industrialists or private sector. Example- Korean steel company.
3.
Midwives: State incentivizes and encourages the private sector through
policy and promotional activities. Example- IT industry in Korea and Japan.
4.
Husbandry: For further development, State commit Research &
Developmental (R&D) activities where private sector can’t go without public
sector leadership. Example- Korean experience in IT industry.
Sectoral Variation:
The role of the state varies to the sector wise in industrial
transformation. State determine the way on the basis of their
capacity and autonomy. Few examples have cited below-
Mineral Extraction:
Generally, state takes lead in the mineral extraction primarily due to its
inherent capacity and the lack of capacity of the private capitals
irrespective of developmental state and intermediate state. Custodian
and demiurge role are played in this context.
Steel:
Korea followed demiurge to industrial transformation in the steel sector.
Phonang industries in the Rhee’s regime was the best example where cost
was lower about 56.70% than USA.
Textile:
India, Japan and Korea, all of them went to the midwives role in the
process of transformation along with greenhouse policy ( protecting the
local industrialists and sector from the external threats, aggression… etc.)
How EA Look Like in the Three types of the State:
Evans divides state in three types in line with industrial transformation.
Extent of Autonomy & Embeddedness is the key determinant whether
its is developmental , predatory or intermediate state. Following table
shows the state of EA in the three types of countries.
Area
Predatory State
Developmental
State
Intermediate State
Bureaucracy
Rough type
Ideal type
Mixed but better
than rough type
Autonomy
Low
High
Middle
Embeddedness
Extremely Limited
High
Overlapped
State Capacity
Low
High
Low but creeping
Leading Role
Public
Public+Private
Dominant Public,
less private
Types of Role
Custodian+Demiurg
e
Midwives+Husbandr
y. Sometimes
Demiurge
Dominant Demiurge
than midwives
Presence of EA
Mostly absence
Presence
Weak presence
Example-
Zaire
Korea, Japan,
Taiwan
Brazil, India.
Variation lies also in the developmental &
intermediate state. Lets seeArea
Developmental State
Japan
Korea
Intermediate State
Brazil
India
Type of
Governance
Democratic
Autocratic Military
Democratic
Bureaucracy
Ideal type
Ideal type Rough
Better than
rough
Extent of EA
Sound
Sound
Weak EA
Weak EA
High
Low
Low
State Capacity High
Relationships between Embedded Autonomy and
Industrial Transformation:
The key to success lies in the embedded autonomy which
enhance the state capacity and guide the way in the
road of industrial transformation. The process of industrial
transformation facilitate greatly if the corporate
coherence and connectedness (EA) presence in the
state. Japan and South Korea are the glaring example.
On the other hand, the process of industrial
transformation found slow and ultimately goes to the
unstable if the embedded autonomy become weak.
India and Brazil are the prominent example in this regard.
 Part 2
a. Role of the State in Industrial Transformation of Information
Technology (IT) sector
b. Three country experiences ( Korea, Brazil & India)
c. Is the state lost its dominance due to emergence of capable
IT sector ?
d. Regaining the State’ Confidence & capacity, How?
e. Summary of the book in 5 points
f. Gift box & conclusion.
Role of the State in Industrial Transformation of Information
Technology (IT) sector:
 1st Phase ( State’ Role was dominant)
After the 2nd
world war, British International Computer Limited ICL)
dominated till 1990s. In the aftermath, Japanese company FUJITSU brought
ICL. Consequently British lost its glamour. USA also showed dominance from
1950s . IBM was leading company in the IT industries. From the end of 1960s
different development and intermediate state began their efforts to
enhance the state capacity and to ensure national security as well as to
gain technological autonomy. Now we see three country’s experience at
glance
India:
 The 1st committee was Bhaba Committee which formed in 1966
 Greenhouse policy to protect the local informatics.
 Department of Electronic (DOE) took lead to guide.
 Demiurge+ greenhouse policy followed.
Brazil:

Burbudinhos
effort
was
first
initiative in 1970s in collor’ regime
which is adjunct with the National
Development Plan.
 Midwives
and
Transnational
Corporation (TNC) had leading
role.
 COBRA was an exception in
Brazil.
 Conflict between the commission
for the Coordination of Electronic
Processing activities and Special
Secretariat for Informatics (SEI)
hindered the process.
Korea:
From the beginning, TNC
capital and support+ Midwives
role of the state had been
made effective.
 Ministry of Communication
(MOC) played coordinating
role.


 In short, in the process of
industrial transformation of IT
sector, the key to success was
autonomy & embeddedness.
In India, state apparatus took
lead
with
corporate
coherence. Brazil and korea
went to the collaboration with
TNC and local industries where
state encourage the wheel of
industrialization process.

2nd Phase ( State lost its
dominance from 1990s)
Major reasons were
TNC and local informatics contract (the
process of internationalization)
 The capacity improvement of the local
informatics to export.
 Transformation of capital between local
industries and TNC.
Example- HCL+HP (Korea),IBM+SID (India)
Re-thinking Embedded Autonomy and Regaining State
Confidence:
Due to the more importance on the connectedness with local
industrial elites rather than other social groups and the capacity
improvement of local industry produce few difficulties. Korean labour
upsurge for low salary was one of them. Evans sees solution in the
following way State should be connected firmly with other social classes like
labour, civil society rather than more focus on the industrialist.
 More participation and distributive policy of the state can be
enhanced the state involvement. Kerala and Austria are prominent
example.
 To the some extent, state should play predatory role along with
playing husbandry for further expansion of industry.
Summary of the Book in Five Points:

The role of state and its involvement is universal irrespective of
types of the state and types of economy.
 Under the leadership of the state apparatus, midwives roles are
more effective in the process of industrial transformation.
 Bureaucratic coherence (autonomy), sound bureaucracy, and
strong ties with social groups are the pre-requisite components to
enhance the state capacity and autonomy as well as for any kind
of development and industrial transformation.
 The process of internationalization and capacity improvement of
local industry incline to loose the state role .
 Declining the state’ role seeks more involvement and more
connectedness with the society.
Thanks for your patience hearing