Development as institutional change: The pitfalls of monocropping and the potentials of deliberation
By P. Evans. 2004
586 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Development, Sociology and Political Science
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d8104fb8340e7c6e2bafc8169b1f02319cb78478
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Development
In Sociology and Political Science
Citations in the corpus
- Building State Capability: Evidence, Analysis, Action (2017, background): “2004), institutional “monocropping” versus “deliberation” (Evans 2004), “experimentation” (Mukand and Rodrik 2005; de Búrca et al.”
- Institutional exceptions on global projects: a process model (2008, background): “Western companies are too often prone to assume that all of their beliefs and practices are superior to those of others (Evans, 2004).”
- Escaping Capability Traps Through Problem-Driven Iterative Adaptation (PDIA) (2013, unknown): “…problems’ (Heifetz 1994), ‘positive deviance’ (Marsh et al 2004; Pascale, Sternin and Sternin 2010), institutional ‘monocropping’ versus ‘deliberation’ (Evans 2004), ‘experimentation’ (Mukand and Rodrik 2005; Manzi 2012), ‘good-enough governance’ (Grindle 2004), ‘democracy as problem…”
- Embedding Local Places in Global Spaces: Geographical Indications as a Territorial Development Strategy (2010, background): “It is essential that policy makers do not fall into the trap of what Evans (2004) has called “institutional monocropping,” in which the set of rules developed over several centu- ries in developed countries is grafted onto different societies and expected to have the same results (see also Portes…”
- Moral Views of Market Society (2007, background): “In his influential statement on industrial strategies in Third World developmental states, for instance, Evans (1995) argues that a successful industrialization must rely on a combination of state capacity (e.g., a cohesive and legitimate bureaucracy, autonomous from political pressure) and a…”