The removal of policymaking autonomy has taken the form of Intervention.

Intervention can be in many forms, through AID or through military force.

Governments who generate perverse social outcomes do not have a right to policymaking
autonomy.
This essay will discuss examples of successful intervention and their failures.
Next, it will discuss cases of non-intervention or endogenous growth.
Finally, this essay will assert that the key to development is in institutional change via the right
incentives.

Policy making autonomy or intervention was pursued by the US to help rebuild the war-ravaged
states of Europe post world war 2 in the form of the Marshall plan. This form of intervention was
aided by the UN and related bodies such as the IMF, World Bank and others.
After the success of the Marshall plan, IFI (The World Bank, IMF etc) decided to extend this type
of intervention to the developing parts of the world in the hope of developing these regions.
IFI's started intervening in developing countries through AID for reform programs such as the
Structural Adjustment Program (SAPs), The poverty Reduction Strategy Paper, Sector Wide
Programs (SWAPs).
The result of these interventions has been catastrophic for the developing world.
The premise for intervention in some cases was to increase investment, however, after 50 years
of aid and intervention, it has been found that instead of investment increasing, consumption
has increased in the countries that received the most aid (Rodrik).
The other premise for intervention given by IFI's was to increase development variables such as
quality of Human capital stock ( Education, Health etc), however, as the results show there has
been no correlation or a negative correlation between the amount of AID received and the
educational attainment or life expectancy of people in countries that have received the most aid.
As of the time of writing this essay, there is not a single country that has been at the receiving
end of Intervention or the removal of policymaking autonomy that has graduated to the OECD.

There are those in the Endogenous Development camp, who argue that countries should be left
to their own devices to figure out how to develop.
The validity of this view rests on the recent successes of countries such as Japan, South Korea,
Taiwan and Singapore.
These countries developed largely by pursuing endogenous development policies of sector
targeting, Import substitution etc.. (Wade) and not by following the prescriptions of the IMF or
the World Bank.

Indeed the evidence in support of endogenous development or abstaining from intervention is

great.
Most developed countries of today did so by following endogenous development strategies
specific to their environments.
From Britain, The US, Germany, Belgium in the 19th Century to Japan and others in the 20th
Century.
However, a closer inspection of the reasons the success of developed countries reveals that it
was the implementation of institutional change with the right incentives that help them achieve
development.
The development of the institutions such as private property rights protection, Free markets to
trade amongst others in England incentivised entrepreneurs, investors and the owners of capital
to invest in the economy and thus contribute to economic development (Bardham).
Institutional reforms implemented in China by then Leader Deng Xiao-ping incentivised
politicians to offer their support since their power was not threatened by the reforms (Qian), The
reforms also incentivised economic actors such as Investors and entrepreneurs to invest in the
country thus contributing to the growth of China.