ABSTRACT
Parts I and II form a pair; that is, both examine the competence of the state, and the behavior and function of the state as related to its competence. In Part II, II undertake that examination through a case study of one sector of the economy. I focus on the policies that the government implemented through the 1956 Machinery Industries Promotion Act (MIPA) in the machinery industries, particularly the machine tool industry. The MIPA was established to promote the machinery industries under the government’s Five-Year Plan for Economic Independence. In examining state competence and its relation to state behavior and function, Part IIdraws on the conclusions of Part I concerning state intervention in the machine tool industry under wartime control. Wartime control saw a situation where the state at least theoretically had much authority to act and the responsibility to implement high-priority policies in a relatively uninhibited environment.
