Industrialization has been a fixation in Myanmar's vision of economic development, as espoused by the ruling elites, since the country gained independence from the British colonizers in 1948. It has been factored into successive policies and plans that successive governments of Myanmar formulated and implemented in order to modernize Myanmar and bring about prosperity with equity to its citizens. The socialist vision of the first generation Myanmar (nationalist) leaders was premised upon fostering successful industrialization of the agriculture-based national economy.

THE GOAL OF INDUSTRIALIZATION

It seems that the “profound aspiration for economic development in the Third World always involves a desire to industrialize” and “[t]his desire is universal”. For Myanmar, the desire to transform its agriculture-based economy into an industrial economy has resulted in a sustained effort by the state since regaining independence on 4 January 1948. For many decades the Myanmar state has expended a substantial portion of its political and economic resources in the name of industrialization. To understand Myanmar's industrialization effort, it is necessary to explore it as a key link in the state's political economy. By taking into account the interplay of economics and politics, it is possible to arrive at a broader understanding of the state's strategies, policies, and management of industrialization. This study attempts to analyse Myanmar's quest for industrial development along those lines.

In this analysis the “state” is used as a locus for industrialization through motivation, formulation, articulation, and implementation of particular strategies, plans, and policies associated with “state leaders” or “state managers”. This warrants a definition of the state which sets it apart from “regime” or “government”. Following Taylor and Migdal, the state may be defined as an autonomous institution which holds authority over people and other institutions within a territory in such a way that it can determine its relationship with them as well as with each other while monopolizing the right to use coercion and violence. It does not mean, however, that societal responses by non-state institutions or individuals are to be dismissed altogether.