Why have some developing countries industrialized and become more prosperous rapidly while others have not? Focusing on South Korea, Brazil, India, and Nigeria, this study compares the characteristics of fairly functioning states and explains why states in some parts of the developing world are more effective. It emphasizes the role of colonialism in leaving behind more or less effective states, and the relationship of these states with business and labor in helping explain comparative success in promoting economic progress.
While the discussion of South Korea and Brazil was very informative, the same cannot be said about the analysis of India and Nigeria. In addition, the discussion of 'neoapatrimonial' states was not that great and did not include many insights from e.g. D. North's et all works in the field. Also, instead of proposing new terminology - cohesive-capitalist, multi-class societies - it would have been clearer if the author followed the existing termnology in current scholarship. However, overall, it is a great book about what role states can play in industrilizing their countries.
It is a very well organized comparative book. Kohli categorizes state based on historical patterns of state authority in developing world; neopatrimonial states, cohesive-capitalist states and fragmented-multiclass states. The author manage to prove his argument, and if you can always apply it to your own country. My country for instance is somewhat like fragmented-multiclass state. No wonder it is hard to manage!
Compares South Korea, Brazil, India and Nigeria and argues that there degree of success in industrializing has been determined primarily by the capacities of their governments. Very well researched and well argued, but his focus on development defined very narrowly as economic growth leaves me not really caring all that much. Probably most useful as background reading if you are interested in the industrialization process of any of these countries.