Therefore, despite the implicit and sometimes explicit correlation made between the free market and development, the two are not and should not be synonymous for developing nations. Opening up the domestic economy while the nation’s comparative advantage is very low may not only throw the country into instability and growing inequality, but may also open the floodgate to foreign companies, foreign investors, and foreign goods that will be very difficult to push back when domestic industries are trying to grow. The state-led model, narrowly defined as economic development led by an autonomous, professional, and bureaucratic elite that understands that the ultimate objective is the building of an industrial economy competitive on the free global market, allows time and space for the nation to improve its comparative advantage in the global market before fully entering it.

The state-led model is neither Soviet-style central planning nor a free market system; instead it is a hybrid, with the state using elements from both worlds to best protect their developing industries while making sure they do not become flaccid. If the assumed goal of developing nations is to become developed, then adoption of elements of the state-led model seems more advisable than market-led policies, not only for the greater political, social, and macroeconomic stability it affords, but primarily because it represents the greatest likelihood of successful industrial and technological transformation of the domestic economy.