Ha-Joon Chang

1. Introduction

Ha-Joon Chang (b. 1963) is a South Korean-born, UK-based economist whose work sits at the intersection of development economics, economic history, and the philosophy of economics. Best known as a leading critic of market fundamentalism, he has argued that economic theories and policies are inseparable from their historical and institutional contexts and from underlying value judgments.

Chang’s scholarship challenges the view that free trade, financial liberalization, and minimal government constitute a universal recipe for growth. Drawing on comparative economic history, he contends that today’s high-income countries relied heavily on protectionism, industrial policy, and developmental states, and that this complicates conventional narratives about “good” and “bad” policies. His famous metaphor of rich nations “kicking away the ladder” captures his claim that global rules often constrain poorer countries from using the tools once employed by now-developed economies.

Alongside his academic writing, Chang has become a prominent public intellectual. Popular books such as 23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism and Economics: The User’s Guide present heterodox arguments in accessible form, inviting non-specialists to question expert authority and to see economics as a contested, inherently political discipline.

In philosophical discussions, Chang is frequently cited for his institutionalist orientation, his defense of methodological pluralism, and his insistence that markets are socially constructed rather than natural or pre-political. His work is used by both supporters and critics in debates about globalization, global justice, and the ethical responsibilities of states in shaping economic outcomes.

"

“Economics is a political argument. It is not—and never can be—a science like physics or chemistry.”

— Ha-Joon Chang, Economics: The User’s Guide

2. Life and Historical Context

Chang’s life and career are closely intertwined with the political and economic transformations of late‑20th‑ and early‑21st‑century capitalism. Born in Seoul in 1963, he grew up during South Korea’s rapid industrialization, when authoritarian but developmentalist governments pursued ambitious export-led growth, extensive industrial policy, and selective protectionism. Observers often note that this background provided him with a concrete example of a developmental state that did not conform to laissez-faire prescriptions.

South Korea’s Transformation

This environment exposed Chang to debates about the legitimacy, costs, and effectiveness of state intervention, shaping his later skepticism toward universalist free-market models.

Cambridge and Globalization Era

Chang moved to the UK in the 1980s to study at the University of Cambridge, just as neoliberal policies were being consolidated in the Thatcher–Reagan era and in international institutions like the IMF and World Bank. These broader shifts—privatization, deregulation, and intensified financial globalization—formed the backdrop to his early academic work.

The post–Cold War triumphalism of the 1990s, when “There Is No Alternative” (TINA) rhetoric was influential, provided the immediate intellectual context for his critique of the Washington Consensus and his historical re-examination of how today’s rich countries actually developed. Chang’s subsequent writings also responded to events such as the Asian financial crisis of 1997–98, the global financial crisis of 2008, and ongoing debates about inequality and deindustrialization, which proponents see as empirical support for his arguments and critics interpret more cautiously.

3. Intellectual Development

Chang’s intellectual trajectory reflects a movement from conventional economic training toward a distinctively heterodox, historically oriented position, shaped by both personal experience and institutional settings.

Early Education and Neoclassical Training

At Seoul National University, Chang received a standard neoclassical education, learning formal micro- and macroeconomics, general equilibrium theory, and mainstream trade models. He has later described this training as useful but limited, arguing that it often abstracted away from history, power, and institutions. This dual familiarity—with both the tools and the limits of mainstream economics—underpins much of his later critique.

Cambridge and Exposure to Heterodox Traditions

At the University of Cambridge, where he completed his PhD under Robert Rowthorn, Chang encountered Marxist, post-Keynesian, and institutionalist approaches. Proponents of these traditions emphasize class conflict, uncertainty, and institutional evolution, in contrast to the optimizing agents of neoclassical models. Chang gravitated toward this pluralist environment, engaging with earlier thinkers such as Friedrich List, Alexander Gerschenkron, and Thorstein Veblen.

His doctoral work on industrial policy and the state’s role in late industrialization marked an early synthesis of economic history, political economy, and policy analysis, and laid the groundwork for his later historical-comparative research.

Consolidation of a Historical-Structural Perspective

From the 1990s onward, Chang increasingly adopted what might be called a historical-structural lens: economic outcomes were analyzed as the result of specific institutional configurations, international hierarchies, and political coalitions. This orientation crystallized in Kicking Away the Ladder and subsequent works, which use detailed historical case studies to interrogate contemporary development advice.

Over time, Chang broadened his audience, moving from specialized academic debates to popular books that blend empirical evidence, narrative, and explicit reflection on values, while maintaining a commitment to methodological pluralism and institutional analysis.

4. Major Works

Chang’s major works span technical academic studies, policy-oriented analyses, and widely read popular books. They are often used as entry points into heterodox development economics and critical perspectives on globalization.

Overview of Selected Works

Thematic Features

• Historical-comparative focus: Kicking Away the Ladder and related essays examine Britain, the US, Germany, and other early industrializers, questioning the claim that they prospered by free trade alone.
• Institutional and state-centered analysis: Globalization, Economic Development and the Role of the State emphasizes institutions and state capacity as determinants of development, arguing that the global regime can constrain national policy space.
• Public engagement: In Bad Samaritans and 23 Things, Chang organizes his critique around “myths” or “things they don’t tell you,” using empirical examples and historical vignettes to make complex arguments accessible.
• Methodological pluralism: Economics: The User’s Guide surveys multiple schools—neoclassical, Keynesian, Marxist, Austrian, institutionalist, feminist—aiming to present them as complementary lenses rather than mutually exclusive doctrines.
• Narrative and metaphor: Edible Economics continues his turn toward narrative forms, using food as a device to discuss issues like trade, industrialization, labor standards, and inequality.

These works collectively showcase Chang’s combination of historical scholarship, institutional analysis, and a didactic style aimed at both specialists and lay readers.

5. Core Ideas and Theoretical Framework

Chang’s core ideas revolve around the claim that economic development and market outcomes are products of historically specific institutions and state policies, rather than universal, self-regulating market laws. His framework is often described as institutionalist and structuralist, with a strong normative undercurrent.

Markets as Institutionally Constructed

Chang argues that there is “no such thing as a free market.” Markets are constituted by legal rules, norms, and power relations—such as property rights, labor regulations, and corporate governance—which embody value judgments about fairness, risk, and responsibility. Proponents of this view see it as undermining the notion that market outcomes are neutral or natural.

Developmental State and Industrial Policy

A central element is the developmental state: governments that actively shape economic structure through industrial policy—tariffs, subsidies, directed credit, and technology policy. Chang holds that successful late industrializers (e.g., South Korea, Taiwan, historically Germany and Japan) used such tools, and that blanket prohibitions on them lack historical justification.

“Kicking Away the Ladder”

The metaphor of kicking away the ladder encapsulates his claim that rich countries originally used protectionist and interventionist strategies but now promote free trade and strict intellectual property regimes that restrict poorer countries’ policy space. Supporters interpret this as evidence of structural inequality in the global system; critics question causal inferences and the degree of policy continuity.

Institutional and Political Economy Emphasis

Chang’s framework stresses:

• Institutions: Formal and informal rules that shape incentives and capabilities.
• Power and conflict: Distributional struggles among classes, sectors, and nations.
• Path dependence: Historical sequences that lock in particular trajectories.

He typically integrates these elements in a historical-comparative approach, positioning his work as an alternative to models that rely on representative agents and frictionless markets.

"

“The foundation of a good economy is not free markets but good institutions.”

— Paraphrase of Chang, Globalization, Economic Development and the Role of the State

6. Key Contributions to Economic Thought

Chang’s contributions to economic thought lie in development theory, trade policy debates, institutional economics, and broader critiques of mainstream orthodoxy.

Reinterpretation of Development History

His work on the historical experience of now-developed countries has influenced debates on catch-up industrialization. By documenting episodes of protectionism, infant-industry support, and active technology policy in Britain, the US, Germany, and others, he challenges linear narratives in which free trade and laissez-faire are portrayed as timeless growth engines. This has fed into discussions about late development, import substitution, and export-led industrialization.

Critique of the Washington Consensus

Chang is widely cited for his critique of the Washington Consensus package—trade liberalization, privatization, financial deregulation—as a one-size-fits-all prescription. He contends that such policies can prematurely expose fragile industries to competition and erode state capacity. This position has influenced heterodox development economists and informed critiques within international organizations themselves, even as many mainstream economists dispute his interpretation of the evidence.

Institutional and State-Capacity Focus

Within institutional economics, Chang emphasizes the political and developmental dimensions of institutions, rather than focusing solely on property rights or contract enforcement. He foregrounds state capacity, bureaucratic competence, and developmental coalitions, contributing to a richer view of how institutions emerge and function in low- and middle-income countries.

Popularization and Pluralism

In 23 Things and Economics: The User’s Guide, Chang popularizes heterodox ideas, presents multiple schools of thought, and highlights internal diversity within economics. Some scholars regard this as a significant contribution to the discipline’s self-understanding and to economic education, while others see it as an oversimplification of complex theoretical positions.

Overall, his work has become a reference point in discussions about trade, industrial policy, and the role of the state in contemporary capitalism, even among critics who contest his empirical and policy conclusions.

7. Methodology and Philosophy of Economics

Chang’s methodological stance is explicitly pluralist and critical of strong forms of positivism in economics. He views economic inquiry as inherently historical, institutionally embedded, and value-laden.

Methodological Pluralism

Chang argues that no single theoretical framework or method can adequately capture the complexity of economic life. He advocates:

• Use of multiple schools of thought (e.g., neoclassical, Keynesian, Marxist, institutionalist) as complementary lenses.
• Combination of quantitative analysis with historical narrative, case studies, and comparative institutional analysis.
• Openness to insights from other disciplines, including political science, sociology, and history.

Proponents see this as fostering intellectual humility and better empirical fit; critics worry it may dilute analytical rigor or provide insufficient guidance on theory choice.

Economics as a Value-Laden Discipline

Philosophically, Chang contends that economics cannot be a purely positive science. The selection of questions, variables, and welfare criteria already involves normative commitments. He therefore urges economists to make value judgments explicit rather than implicitly embedding them in technical assumptions.

"

“Economics is a political argument. It is not—and never can be—a science like physics or chemistry.”

— Ha-Joon Chang, Economics: The User’s Guide

This view aligns with strands in the philosophy of social science that emphasize theory-ladenness, underdetermination, and the role of values in model-building.

Realism, Institutions, and Abstraction

Chang tends to favor a realist orientation: theories should be judged partly by their ability to illuminate real-world institutions, historical processes, and power relations. He is skeptical of highly abstract models that omit institutions and assume hyper-rational agents, arguing that such models may possess internal elegance but limited explanatory relevance.

At the same time, he does not reject formal modeling per se; rather, he suggests it should be one tool among many, used with awareness of its limitations and underlying assumptions.

8. Impact on Development Policy and Global Justice

Chang’s work has had significant influence on debates over development policy and global justice, though the interpretation and extent of this influence remain contested.

Policy Space and International Rules

His historical argument about “kicking away the ladder” has been used in discussions about policy space within the WTO, IMF, and World Bank frameworks. Proponents claim that his research supports demands for greater flexibility in trade, industrial, and technology policies for developing countries, including:

• More permissive rules on tariffs and subsidies.
• Relaxation or reform of intellectual property regimes.
• Recognition of the legitimacy of industrial policy and capital controls.

Chang’s ideas have been cited by some policymakers, NGOs, and UN agencies advocating a rebalancing of global economic governance.

Global Justice Debates

In political philosophy and global ethics, Chang’s work is used to question whether existing trade and investment regimes are fair to poorer nations. Supporters argue that if rich countries historically used policies they now discourage, this raises concerns about hypocrisy and structural injustice. Chang’s emphasis on historical responsibility and institutional asymmetries aligns with certain cosmopolitan and critical theories of global justice.

Alternative perspectives, however, contend that generous access to rich-country markets, foreign investment, and technology transfer may offset such concerns, or that contemporary conditions differ so significantly from the 19th century that direct historical analogies are misleading.

Influence on Development Practice

Chang’s arguments have informed heterodox policy experiments and debates in countries seeking alternatives to strict liberalization, as well as internal critiques within international organizations. Yet mainstream policy advice often continues to emphasize openness and market-oriented reforms, sometimes incorporating selective industrial policy within a broader liberal framework.

Thus, his impact is often characterized as agenda-shaping—broadening the range of thinkable policies and ethical questions—rather than providing a dominant alternative blueprint.

9. Reception, Criticisms, and Debates

Chang’s work has generated extensive debate across economics, development studies, and political philosophy.

Supportive Reception

Heterodox economists, many development practitioners, and various NGOs view Chang as a leading critic of market fundamentalism. They credit him with:

• Reviving interest in industrial policy and the developmental state.
• Demonstrating the historical contingency of free-trade success stories.
• Making complex economic ideas accessible to the public.

His books have been widely translated and used in university courses, especially in development studies and political economy.

Criticisms from Mainstream Economists

Several mainstream economists challenge both his empirical interpretations and policy conclusions. Common criticisms include:

• Selective history: Some contend that Chang overemphasizes episodes of protectionism and underplays the role of markets, competition, and openness in historical development.
• Causality issues: Critics argue that correlation between protection and growth does not establish causation; protection may have coincided with, rather than caused, successful industrialization.
• Policy risks: Skeptics warn that industrial policy can invite rent-seeking, corruption, and misallocation, especially in states with weak institutions.

In trade economics, his arguments have sparked technical debates about the conditions under which infant-industry protection is justified.

Debates on Method and Tone

Chang’s methodological pluralism is welcomed by some philosophers of economics but seen by others as insufficiently precise regarding criteria for theory choice. His popular works are praised for clarity yet criticized by some economists for simplifying or caricaturing mainstream positions.

There is also debate over Chang’s normative stance. While he calls for explicit acknowledgment of values, some interlocutors argue that his own value commitments—favoring equity, national policy autonomy, and skepticism toward financial globalization—influence his selection and interpretation of evidence. Others see this openness about values as a methodological virtue rather than a flaw.

Overall, Chang occupies a contested but prominent place in contemporary debates on development and globalization.

10. Legacy and Historical Significance

Chang’s historical significance is often framed in terms of his role in reshaping debates on development strategy, the ethics of globalization, and the self-understanding of economics as a discipline.

Reframing Development Narratives

By foregrounding the historical use of protectionism and industrial policy in rich countries, Chang has contributed to a broader reassessment of linear modernization narratives. His work is frequently cited in discussions that challenge the inevitability of neoliberal reforms and emphasize the diversity of successful development paths.

Institutional Turn and State Reconsideration

His emphasis on institutions and state capacity aligns with, and has reinforced, a wider “institutional turn” in social science. While not alone in this trend, Chang’s accessible writings have helped bring ideas about the developmental state and structural constraints into mainstream policy and public conversations, including in contexts where such themes were previously marginal.

Public Understanding of Economics

In the realm of public discourse, Chang is often grouped with other critics who have sought to demystify economics after the global financial crisis of 2008. 23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism and Economics: The User’s Guide have influenced how students, journalists, and lay readers perceive the discipline—as contested, historically situated, and politically charged.

Long-Term Assessment

Scholars diverge on how to assess his long-term legacy:

As subsequent research evaluates specific aspects of his historical and policy arguments, Chang’s broader impact appears to lie in altering what counts as plausible in conversations about development, markets, and global justice, rather than in establishing a single, uncontested theoretical paradigm.