ABSTRACT
To translate state-capital relations into ‘state-society’ relations, they introduce a set of arguments that can be called ‘ the developmental regime of labour relations ’ which is described as the symptom (together with a weak capitalist class) of weak civil society. Therefore, Amsden described ‘weak labour’ as a condition of the state domination over society (Amsden 1989: 147). Johnson also pointed out that weak labour socially engineered by the government is a condition of successful state domination (Johnson 1985: 75). Weiss and Hobson removed the labour question altogether by describing weak civil society (Weiss and Hobson 1995: 164). Leftwich also presented these ‘weak civil society forces’ as a condition of the strong state (Leftwich 2000: 163-65). The developmental regime of labour relations is evidenced by the empirical absence of an organised labour movement that made the state free from the challenge of the working class. The regime is also featured with the relatively peaceful and stable labour market on the basis of compensation for hard-work through highly ‘re-distributive’ state policies that enable the state to keep pursuing its economic policy. 1 The state-labour relation here appears a completely one-way relation that presupposes the subordination of labour to the state. Now that labour appears to be subordinated to the state and the state has a superior position in conducting capital accumulation, the state appears as if it is free from societal-forces. It is in this argument that they complete the identifi cation of the nature of the government-private business relations with that of the relations between the state and society. While the state’s freedom from labour enables the statists to generalise the nature of the relations between businesses and government into the state’s developmental autonomy from society, the highly re-distributive nature of the state’s developmental policies plays an important role in defi ning the nature of the state intervention in capitalist development as a pursuit of the common interest of nations. Mystifi cation of the state through transforming the government’s leadership against private business into apparent ‘autonomy’ of the state from society is done, without showing that much contradiction, largely thanks to the empirical absence of the social power of labour.
