This review integrates state capacity, inclusive institutions, and mission-oriented policy, indicating balanced development is crucial.
This review synthesizes three paradigms: developmental state theory, inclusive institutions, and mission-oriented policy into a unified AIM (Autonomy × Inclusivity × Mission) framework of state capacity. The AIM framework is based upon three works, along with supporting papers, symbolizing each dimension: Milor's France–Turkey comparison, Acemoglu & Robinson's institutional framework, and Mazzucato's entrepreneurial state theory as an empirical anchor. It introduces a new configuration model that reveals how autonomy, inclusivity, and mission- orientation interact as complementary rather than competing dimensions of state capacity. We demonstrate through comparative case analysis that optimal state capacity requires balanced achievement across all three dimensions, which is not static and variable as evidenced through historical examples.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Berkay Kaan Kabadayı (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: