Week 13 Memo – Evans and Chibber’s Readings For this week, we were given two pieces of readings by Evans and Chibber respectively. With regards to the piece by Evans, the main argument can be said to be the importance of having a “meritocratic bureaucracy with a strong sense of corporate identity and a dense set of institutionalized links to private elites” when it comes to promoting development in less developed countries. On the other hand, Chibber’s piece can be viewed as an add-on to Evans’s piece as Chibber argues that having a bureaucracy like the one mentioned by Evans is not enough for development to take place in less developed countries. What is further required is the coordination between different agencies as it is through this coordination will the different agencies be able to work towards a common goal and therefore promote development in the country. From these two readings, I believe that there are a few points that can be further discussed. In the piece by Evans, it is mentioned that neoutilitarian theorists believe …show more content…
Firstly, from Chibber’s piece, we saw the importance of having a strong leader in the form of Park Chung Hee when it comes to economic development in South Korea. Therefore, does this means that having a strong or even an authoritarian leader makes it more likely for a country’s economic development policies to be push through? Secondly, from Evans’s piece, we learnt that corruption is detrimental to a country’s economic development. However, are there occasions where corruption actually helps to promote a country’s economic growth? Finally, it is also mentioned in Evans’s piece that “bureaucratic control should be replaced by market mechanisms wherever possible” . However, are there some goods and services that are essential and hence should be provided by the government instead of leaving it to the market to provide