Loading field map
Why do some developing countries build institutions that foster growth while others remain trapped in extractive arrangements? This question has driven a distinct subfield within development economics since the early 1980s. Over four decades, five major frameworks have emerged, each offering a different answer about what institutions are, how they originate, and whether they can be changed. The story of institutional development is not a simple succession of theories replacing one another; it is a debate in which frameworks have coexisted, narrowed each other's claims, and periodically broadened the agenda again.
The first framework, New Institutional Economics of Development (NIE), took shape in the early 1980s through the work of Douglass North and others. NIE challenged the neoclassical assumption that efficient institutions would automatically emerge wherever markets existed. Instead, it argued that institutions—the formal rules, informal norms, and enforcement mechanisms that structure economic interaction—are shaped by transaction costs, power asymmetries, and historical path dependence. In this view, developing countries often remain poor because their institutional frameworks reward predation over production. NIE provided a powerful vocabulary for analyzing property rights, contract enforcement, and the rule of law, but it treated the state primarily as a potential threat to those rights. Its broad umbrella concept of institutions left room for many empirical applications, but also for ambiguity about which institutions mattered most.
Almost simultaneously, a rival framework emerged from studies of East Asian industrialization. Developmental State Theory, launched by Chalmers Johnson's analysis of Japan's Ministry of International Trade and Industry and later refined by Peter Evans's concept of "embedded autonomy," argued that state intervention—not just property rights—was the key to rapid structural transformation. Where NIE saw the state as a source of rent-seeking, Developmental State Theory saw a capable, autonomous bureaucracy that could guide industrial policy and coordinate investment. The two frameworks coexisted as genuine rivals throughout the 1980s and 1990s. They agreed that institutions matter for development, but they disagreed fundamentally on whether the state should be constrained or empowered. NIE dominated in mainstream economics, while Developmental State Theory found a home in political science and heterodox development studies.
In the 1990s, a third framework broadened the institutional concept in a different direction. Social Capital and Collective-Action Approaches drew on Elinor Ostrom's studies of common-pool resource governance and Robert Putnam's work on civic traditions in Italy. Ostrom showed that communities could develop effective rules for managing shared resources without top-down state intervention or privatization—a finding that challenged both NIE's emphasis on formal property rights and Developmental State Theory's faith in state-led solutions. Putnam linked the density of horizontal networks and trust to the performance of regional governments, suggesting that institutional quality depends on social fabric as much as on formal design. This framework expanded the institutional agenda to include trust, norms, and networks, but its influence narrowed over time as researchers struggled to measure social capital convincingly and to separate cause from effect. Today, Social Capital approaches survive as a niche within community-driven development programs and local governance studies, coexisting with rather than replacing the earlier frameworks.
A more decisive narrowing came with Colonial Origins and Institutional Persistence, which emerged around 2000 from a landmark paper by Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, and James Robinson. They used settler mortality rates in former colonies as an instrument to show that the type of colonial institution—extractive versus settler-based—had persistent effects on current economic performance. This framework took NIE's broad institutional concept and narrowed it sharply to a focus on property rights institutions and their historical roots. It also brought causal identification to the center of the subfield: rather than merely arguing that institutions matter, Colonial Origins provided an empirical strategy to estimate their effect. This methodological revolution challenged Developmental State Theory by suggesting that extractive institutions, not state capacity, were the fundamental constraint on development. Colonial Origins quickly became the dominant empirical framework in the subfield, but its narrow focus on property rights left other institutional dimensions—especially the state's own capabilities—underexplored.
State Capacity and Governance, emerging around 2007, responded directly to that narrowing. Drawing on work by Timothy Besley and Torsten Persson, this framework distinguished between fiscal capacity (the ability to tax), legal capacity (the ability to enforce contracts), and administrative capacity (the ability to implement policy). It argued that these capacities are themselves institutional outcomes that require deliberate investment, often in response to political threats or war. State Capacity broadened the institutional agenda again, bringing the state back in as a central object of analysis—but with a different method than Developmental State Theory. Where the earlier framework relied on historical case studies, State Capacity used formal modeling and cross-country econometrics, making it more compatible with the empirical turn in development economics. State Capacity and Colonial Origins are complementary in many respects: Colonial Origins explains why some countries have weak property rights, while State Capacity explains why they also lack fiscal and administrative infrastructure. Yet they are in tension over what should be measured and prioritized. Colonial Origins emphasizes constraints on the state (secure property rights), while State Capacity emphasizes the state's own capabilities. This tension drives much current research.
Today, all five frameworks remain active, but they occupy different roles. NIE serves as background infrastructure, providing the language of transaction costs and path dependence that most researchers still use. Developmental State Theory persists in debates about industrial policy and the political economy of structural transformation. Social Capital approaches inform community-driven development and participatory governance, though they no longer command center stage. Colonial Origins dominates empirical work on long-run development, despite ongoing debates about the validity of its instrument. State Capacity is the fastest-growing area, especially in public finance, governance, and the study of state-building. The leading frameworks today—Colonial Origins and State Capacity—agree that historical institutions matter and that causal identification is essential. They disagree on whether the state should be seen primarily as a threat to property rights or as a necessary builder of capacity. This disagreement is not a sign of weakness; it is the productive tension that keeps the subfield moving forward, forcing researchers to ask which institutions matter, for whom, and under what conditions.