Iranian Studies
Ebrahim Abbasi; Mohammad Jamiri
Abstract
Extended AbstractIntroductionThe theory of developmental state is an approach to industrial and economic development that shares certain features with the policies of Reza Shah’s regime in Iran. This perspective has often been used in Iran to explain the industrial trajectories of the Asian Tigers, ...
Read More
Extended AbstractIntroductionThe theory of developmental state is an approach to industrial and economic development that shares certain features with the policies of Reza Shah’s regime in Iran. This perspective has often been used in Iran to explain the industrial trajectories of the Asian Tigers, as well as to analyze the efforts to adapt to the industrialization trend in the post-Islamic Revolution period. However, the core assumptions of this theory have not yet been thoroughly examined concerning the industrial and economic transformations that occurred during Reza Shah’s rule. In this respect, the present study tried to answer the question of whether Reza Shah’s industrial and financial measures can be understood within the theory of the developmental state. The objective was to evaluate the key indicators of this theory and assess how they align with the developments that took place during Reza Shah’s reign.Materials and MethodsThe current study adopted a qualitative and explanatory approach, and drew on primary sources such as memoirs, documents, and authentic analytical works from the period to address the research question. Moreover, the theory of developmental state was used as the framework of analysis. The concept of developmental state (also known as developmentalist state) offers a theoretical framework that can help evaluate the economic transformations of Reza Shah’s reign. This theory is based on the idea that government intervention can play a central role the country’s industrial development process. The term developmental state was first popularized by Chalmers Johnson, who used it to describe a theoretical model to explain a reality derived from the experiences of countries such as Japan, Indonesia, South Korea, Botswana, and Taiwan. A distinguishing feature of these countries was their continuous and sustainable economic growth—averaging 4% or more over two decades—accompanied by the increased level of welfare and living standards and effective inflation control. Although these governments did not follow economically liberal models and often advocated for a maximalist system, they simultaneously provided significant support to the private sector through a highly effective and efficient bureaucracy. The theory of developmental state was later developed further by scholars such as Peter Evans and Adrian Leftwich. Leftwich defines developmental states as those whose domestic policies and foreign relations are aimed at gaining power, autonomy, independence, capability, and capacity. These goals are pursued either through the direct organization of economic growth or by fostering conditions that encourage it—or a combination of the two.Results and DiscussionThe indicators of a developmental state, as applied to the context of Reza Shah’s regime, included a centralized and comprehensive bureaucracy, developmental elites, the absence of a central development body in Iran, state independence, a favorable international environment, and the neglect of agriculture. First, a key requirement of a developmental state is a centralized and comprehensive bureaucracy that extends across the entire country. In this context, bureaucracy refers to a powerful, proficient, and corruption-free network. Prior to the Pahlavi period, Iran lacked such a unified bureaucratic system. With Reza Khan’s rise to power, the need to concentrate power in order to counter internal fragmentation and promote national unity led to the establishment of a unified and comprehensive bureaucracy. However, from the outset, Iran’s administrative system faced significant intellectual, cultural, and managerial challenges. These obstacles prevented it from evolving into an agile, dynamic, and corruption-resistant system. As a result, the bureaucratic system became a persistent obstacle to development—one that continues to affect the country to this day. The administrative system remains dependent, passive, and informal. Within such systems, managers tend to be subordinate to the decisions coming from the top of the political pyramid. The second key indicator was the role of developmental elites. Elites—both executive and intellectual—are regarded as essential to transforming society and advancing the objectives of the state. Under Reza Shah’s regime, Iran’s political elite could be broadly categorized into two groups. The first included individuals such as Davar, Hekmat, Foroughi, and Taghizadeh, who were primarily intellectuals and played a significant role in shaping the cultural and ideological foundations of the state. The second group, which exercised greater influence over political and executive affairs, comprised figures like Teimur Tash, the powerful Minister of the Court, Nosrat al-Dowleh Firouz, Seyyed Mohammad Tadayyon, and Sardar Asad. This dominant group entrenched irrational, self-centered, and anti-developmental practices within government operations, effectively limiting opportunities for capable and competent elites to emerge and advance. In addition, none of the elites during Reza Shah’s reign—including Foroughi, Hekmat, Davar, Kasravi, Taghizadeh, Bahar, and others—produced any substantial work on Iran’s industrial or economic development. Their intellectual contributions, including newspaper articles, were overwhelmingly focused on cultural, literary, political, and civilizational issues. Another important indicator was the absence of a central development body in Iran. The existence of a central organization capable of managing national development through well-designed planning is an essential component of a successful developmental state. Such an institution ensures policy coherence and helps identify and nurture talent. However, during Reza Shah’s rule, no such organization existed. While there were efforts toward industrialization and modernization, the idea of systematic, planned economic development was not operationalized until Reza Shah’s exile. According to Ebtehaj, the failure to institutionalize planning during this period stemmed from Reza Shah’s resistance to the centralization of planning. The fourth indicator was state independence, which refers to the state’s autonomy from reliance on social classes. In the case of Iran, the state was not dependent on any particular class but operated beyond class affiliations. Reza Shah, as the founder of the Pahlavi dynasty, did not view his government as being indebted to any social group or class. Iran’s historical experience suggests that although his regime maintained independence from all social groups, it was also distinctly isolated from them. On the one hand, the government was entirely detached from the religious leadership and groups—who constituted the majority of the population—and there was little to no shared logic. On the other hand, ties with traditional and small merchants—who represented the backbone of Iran’s commercial sector—were also severed. A favorable international environment is another critical factor in enabling a developmental state. Without a suitable international environment is essential for the export and competitiveness of domestically produced good, developmentalist states face significant challenges. Many argue that the conditions in South Korea and Taiwan after World War II were exceptional. These included unwavering U.S. support aimed at curbing the spread of communism, as well as the broader conditions of the Cold War. In contrast, Iran faced a different set of challenges. During the same period, the competing interests of major powers—particularly Britain and the Soviet Union—acted as major obstacles to Iran’s development. Between the two world wars, Iran was exposed to the rivalry of the superpowers, and its development became subject to their pledge and distraint. The last and sixth indicator was the neglect of agriculture during the reign of Reza Shah. Agriculture was of great importance for reasons such as leveraging the value-added potential of the agricultural sector for industrial expansion, countering the influence of communism, and ensuring the production of affordable and essential food for the population in the developmental state. At the same time, attention to agriculture, along with land reforms in Iran, was necessary and essential, but these goals were not realized in practice. This neglect can be attributed to factors such as the Shah himself becoming the largest landowner in the country. ConclusionThe research findings indicate that although certain elements of the theory—such as a proficient bureaucracy, a weak civil society, a permanent army, and developmental elites—appear consistent with the political and economic approaches of Reza Shah’s reign, in practice, several critical factors undermined a true alignment. These include the absence of a development planning body, the government’s lack of engagement with social classes, an unfavorable international environment, the elimination of developmental elites and their replacement with non-developmental ones, and Reza Shah’s neglect of essential development measures, such as land reforms, which are considered foundational for national development. What was necessary for real production—across industry, agriculture, services, and especially science and technology—was not achieved, with most sectors remaining subordinate to foreign markets. Iran’s industrial expansion strategy was driven by individual preferences rather than being organization-oriented and purposeful. No organization or collective body was involved in planning economic and industrial growth. For these reasons, despite sharing some characteristics with the theory of developmental state—such as a weak civil society and a permanent army—Reza Shah’s administration cannot be classified as developmentalist.
The State
Mostafa Kavakebyan; Azim Matin
Abstract
In explicating the essence of a modern state, one must navigate a theoretical landscape defined by a set of characteristics, criteria, and requisites that differentiate the theory of the modern state from alternative paradigms, notably the absolute state. This theoretical realm, characterized by a prescriptive ...
Read More
In explicating the essence of a modern state, one must navigate a theoretical landscape defined by a set of characteristics, criteria, and requisites that differentiate the theory of the modern state from alternative paradigms, notably the absolute state. This theoretical realm, characterized by a prescriptive understanding of modern governance, serves as a guiding force, prompting governments worldwide to emulate its structural blueprint. This form of governance, intricately woven into the fabric of contemporary political landscapes, commands loyalty from its constituents. It wields influence both directly and indirectly, orchestrating societal affairs through a bureaucratic apparatus that intricately affects diverse aspects of citizens' lives.In stark contrast to premodern governance reliant on tribute and force, the modern government garners economic sustenance directly from its citizenry, levying taxes to fulfill its distinct responsibilities. At the core of the modern state lies the imperative of nation-building, an endeavor necessitating the homogenization of social identity. However, the crux of our inquiry lies in the intricate relationship between us Iranians and the modern state. Delving into the historical narrative of the modern state as an experiential journey and scrutinizing it as a malleable theoretical model emerge as imperative undertakings.The overarching purpose of this research is to meticulously examine the historical trajectory underpinning the formation and stabilization of the modern state in Iran. Anchored in the intellectual currents of Western thought, this scholarly pursuit aspires to enhance our understanding of the state's essence and its nuanced position within the Iranian milieu. A discerning analysis of the country's policies and orientations naturally unfolds as a byproduct of this historical exploration.Guiding our intellectual journey is a theoretical framework rooted in historical institutionalism. This approach, a beacon in the study of state building in Iran, focuses on unraveling the intricate tapestry of social, political, and economic behaviors, tracing their evolution over time. Institutions, elevated to the status of independent variables, emerge as architects shaping individual and collective actions alongside the broader panorama of social and political phenomena. Recognizing that institutions not only mold actors' strategies but also sculpt their objectives, historical institutionalism, with its attention to structural variables such as class position and mediating entities like political parties and unions, provides a nuanced lens through which to study the formation and construction of the government in Iran.The research methodology, a dual-pronged approach, employs the content analysis method to scrutinize definitions of the modern state put forth by Western thinkers. This analytical approach, eschewing the exploration of attitudes and beliefs in favor of dissecting produced messages, is complemented by the historical research method. This method involves a meticulous examination of specific past events within a defined temporal scope, integrating historical facts through a rigorous regimen of data collection, evaluation, and verification.Tracing the historical trajectory of government formation in the West, political scientists posit that the foundations of the modern state or nation-state were laid in the late Middle Ages, influenced by the Catholic cultural context. The formation of modern national states was shaped by factors such as religious reform movements and conflicts among European countries. The Treaty of Westphalia in the 16th to 18th centuries is considered a pivotal event in the emergence of the modern state. From the 19th century onward, the modern government model gradually supplanted other political systems globally.The indicators and criteria of modern governments encompass a legitimate monopoly on controlling the means of violence, a specific territorial territory, sovereignty, centralized power, a codified constitution, the use of impersonal power, nationalism, a public bureaucracy, authority/legitimacy, citizenship, and provincial tax.The historical exploration of government formation in Iran reveals nuanced epochs, beginning with the Safavid era's establishment of a robust central government to counter threats from the Sunni Ottoman Empire. Shah Abbas I marked a zenith, unifying the country politically, relocating the capital to Isfahan, fostering a unified religious identity based on Shiite Islam, and expanding diplomatic relations. Subsequent governments, such as the Afshariya and Zand, did not significantly alter national and state organizations. The Qajar dynasty witnessed an expansion of central government power, albeit rooted in the Illyrian system. The constitutional revolution of 1285 emerged as a historical turning point, ushering in constitutionalism and paving the way for a more structured political system in Iran. The subsequent Pahlavi absolute government, while characterized by economic nationalism and centralization of power, laid the foundations for absolute rule.In conclusion, this historical exploration, spanning from the Safavid era to the Pahlavi period, unveils Iran's trajectory of independent political thought and the evolution of a nation transitioning to citizenship. Constitutionalism emerges as the cornerstone of modern governance, establishing a balanced relationship between the government and the nation. The era of Reza Shah, marked by economic nationalism and the consolidation of government power, signifies a fundamental shift, laying the groundwork for absolute rule. This scholarly endeavor sheds light on the nuanced tapestry of Iran's political evolution.
Alireza Ali Soufi; Mohammad Reza Sadeghi
Abstract
Reza Shah's policies regarding the judiciary system can be evaluated in the direction of The Realization of Modern Absolute Government which was as a kind of reconstruction and redefinition of the traditional order at pre-constitutional period. Therefore, the direct intervention of the executive branch ...
Read More
Reza Shah's policies regarding the judiciary system can be evaluated in the direction of The Realization of Modern Absolute Government which was as a kind of reconstruction and redefinition of the traditional order at pre-constitutional period. Therefore, the direct intervention of the executive branch in matters of justice and the neglect of principles 81 and 82 should be considered as the continuation of the controversy between traditional tyranny and the democratic order and constitutionalism. This Principles were widely violated at the earlier of this year. and continued and led to the presentation of an interpretation of principle 82. This interpretation, which disaffected the two principles in the same time, provided an apparently legal solution to the Minister of Justice in order to ignore the independence and defection of the justice and attempt to change the intervention of the judges. This research is done with the goal of considering the effective factors in Legitimize Government Domination in Courts, it has been conducted by descriptive- analytical approach, by documentary and library method and seeking to answer this fundamental question that, which are the main factors in the interpretation of principle 82 by the regime. The findings of the research presents that the authoritarian nature of the government was a source of pressure on the courts to issue voter sentences, and since some of the judges were not willing to cooperate within the framework of power, so to eliminate the legal barriers to their removal, the rule of interpretation of Article 82 Was drafted and approved.
Hamidreza Rahmanizadeh Dehkordi; Mohamad Medi Zanjani
Abstract
Purpose: There are various approaches to study the modern state in Iran including the Marxist approach, Patrimonial approach and the Oriental despotism approach. These approaches, however, often consider the modern state as a full-blown despotism and Reza Shah as an "oriental despot" or an autocrat who ...
Read More
Purpose: There are various approaches to study the modern state in Iran including the Marxist approach, Patrimonial approach and the Oriental despotism approach. These approaches, however, often consider the modern state as a full-blown despotism and Reza Shah as an "oriental despot" or an autocrat who imposed his will upon the society. The critics of Reza Shah claim that he was a dictator: He secularized laws, forced women to do away with the veil, and introduced Western-style dress for men. They state that during his time, there was hardly any political life in the form of opposition. The press was muzzled; the parliament rubber-stamped the king’s decisions, and some of his political rivals and confidantes were imprisoned, some eliminated. Religious protests were put down robustly, and Reza Shah was ruthless with tribal rebellions. Indeed, his style was very brusque. This study aims to show how a seemingly absolute and autocrat modern state, Reza Shah’s State, could be limited by a number of factors including the existence of strong social forces such as tribes, the state’s incapability to exert absolute force, and the intervention of foreign powers. In other words, there have been some social and economic contexts influencing the modern state. In this situation, the Shah could be forced to make a decision and take an action different from his own will. To prove this claim, this study gives some evidence from various sources, including foreign state documents, books, memories, diaries of foreign financial advisers such as Dr. Millspaugh, eyewitnesses who registered their observations etc. Design/Methodology/Approach: The structural approach is adapted to justify the modern state. In other words, it is shown that to understand the concrete reality of The Modern State, one should refer to the context (social forces, geographic situation, and intervention of foreign forces) and, moreover, one should refer to the state and its ability/inability to exerting absolute force in its territory. Findings: Our thesis can be summed up by one typical statement: Social, economic, and demographic situations (including social forces and geographically large countries with dispersed population), that is what is called as a context and some characteristics of the Modern State (including state inability to exert absolute force on the country), prevent the state from falling into full-blown despotism. The study has summarized the other approaches and compared them to the approach of the present paper for highlighting the different dimensions of this approach. Originality/Value: It is the researcher’s belief that this study throws a new light to the debates on Reza Shah’s state as the first modern state in Iran. The critics of this state assert that it was a full blown despotic state, and the defenders consider it as a reformer-dictator state that laid the foundation of modern Iran and transformed the chaotic and desperate conditions of the time. This study shows that, in spite of the fact that there were some suppressions, some structural impediments prevented the Shah to act on his own absolute will.
