This study has sought to explain why some developing countries have industrialized more rapidly and with more success than other developing countries. There is clearly more to development than industrialization, however. A successful program of development also ought to aim at strengthening a country's agriculture, alleviating poverty, improving income distribution, enhancing political security and civil liberties, and building capabilities that enable individuals and groups to live meaningful lives. Nevertheless, industrial societies are generally wealthier than agricultural societies, so it is not surprising that all leaders of developing countries seek, as well, to build new industry. Yet some peripheral countries have progressed further than others in achieving this goal. How does one best explain the relative success of some late-late industrializers vis-à-vis others?

The answer developed in this study has emphasized the state's role in both promoting and hindering industrialization, while conceding some important qualifications. A variety of other factors have also influenced the rates and patterns of late-late industrialization. Such factors include conditions of the global economy, the functioning of national markets, the role of indigenous entrepreneurs, and differing “starting points,” including the availability of knowledge and technology. Second, it has struck me on more than one occasion that the relationship between states and economic development also runs in the opposite direction, with some minimal level of development probably necessary for the construction of modern states.