← Back to Library

Law versus development

Kaiser Kuo · Sinica · ·12 min read
Commentary by Hex Index staff

This piece cuts through the usual geopolitical noise to reveal a grim, human-scale struggle: the collision of rapid industrial expansion with the fundamental right to justice. Kaiser Kuo doesn't just review a book; they expose a legal vacuum where human lives are treated as transactional costs in the race for development. In an era where global powers compete for influence in the Global South, this analysis forces a hard question: can a nation truly be sovereign if its courts are bypassed to protect foreign capital?

The Historical Weight of Development

The article opens with a stark reminder that the tension between law and economic growth is not new, though its current manifestation is uniquely dangerous. Kuo anchors the discussion in the gritty reality of the American industrial age, recalling the tragic accidents that defined early tort law. They note that in Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (1938), a man walking near a rail line was struck by an open door, losing an arm, while in Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. (1928), a woman suffered a stammer after a chain reaction of explosions and falling scales. These cases, Kuo writes, were born from a period when "Americans witnessed profound changes in how the U.S. economy worked," forcing a debate on "how much pain should be tolerated in the name of economic growth."

Law versus development

This historical framing is essential. It strips away the notion that strict liability or robust worker protections are merely "Western" impositions; they are the hard-won results of societies deciding that human safety cannot be sacrificed for speed. Kuo argues that while these questions have receded in the United States, they have surged to the forefront in the Global South, where the "rise of China" has introduced a new, heterodox model of development. The author observes that in many locations, "questions about law and development continue to capture a great deal of attention," but now they carry a "geopolitical gloss" where foreign partners bring their own ideas about how an economy "should" work.

Critics might argue that the U.S. historical analogy is imperfect, given the different scales of state power and the specific nature of Chinese state-capitalism. However, the core parallel remains potent: the fundamental trade-off between industrial acceleration and the rule of law is a universal challenge, not a cultural one.

"In the United States, those questions have receded from public debate. By the end of World War II, the United States had established itself beyond question as one of the world's most 'developed' countries."

The Human Cost of Immunity

The review pivots sharply from legal theory to the visceral reality of Miriam Driessen's research in Ethiopia. Kuo highlights the deep, almost existential disconnect between Chinese investors and Ethiopian workers. The author quotes an Ethiopian employee who feels disposable: "Once you have completed your job, you are nothing for them... They use you and throw you away, just like socks." This sentiment is mirrored by the arrogance of a Chinese worker who insists, "These black people... don't realize we are here to help them."

Kuo details the lethal consequences of this dynamic, describing a tunnel-building project where a Chinese foreman raised a platform, crushing an Ethiopian mechanic against the roof. The tragedy is compounded by the legal maneuvering that followed. The author notes that the Chinese defendant "successfully, and opaquely, removed the case from the Ethiopian court system," a move that opposition politicians later cited as evidence of the government "caving to Chinese capital."

The central argument here is that "immunity" is being weaponized. Driessen, as presented by Kuo, shows that Chinese entities argue litigation is "counterproductive to Ethiopia's economic prospects." A manager, after an employee killed a young girl with his car, urged the family to settle, stating, "We came here to work... Our work must not be interrupted." Kuo points out the chilling logic: Chinese businesses view Ethiopia's legal system as "too 'rigid,' 'protective,' or 'complete' for its level of wealth."

This framing is effective because it exposes the moral hazard of the "development first" argument. It suggests that the very institutions designed to protect citizens are being labeled as obstacles to progress. As Kuo writes, "China achieved rapid, sustained economic growth without a legal system that strongly protected worker rights." But the author rightly questions whether this model is transferable or desirable, noting that "a growing number of scholars... insist that the task facing political leaders in the Global South is not to construct institutions that conform to Western-influenced ideals."

The human cost is the anchor of this section. When a child is killed and the response is to prioritize the "continuity of work," the abstract debate about legal immunity collapses into a moral failure.

"Many Ethiopians were preoccupied with 'dignity.' This meant the dignity of individuals, but also to the dignity of the Ethiopian state, which, as a source of pride that is constantly referred to by its leaders, was never colonized."

The Internal Fracture

Perhaps the most surprising insight Kuo offers is that the conflict is not simply Ethiopia versus China. It is a fracture within the Ethiopian state itself. The author reveals that some Ethiopian judges and officials actively support the immunity argument, viewing worker-protective laws as "an obstacle to Ethiopia's immediate economic development." One judge suggests a formal, separate set of rules for foreign businesses, arguing, "One of the grounds of attracting foreign direct investment is how a country's law protects the investor's rights... They should not have to spend all of their time in court."

Kuo contrasts this with the "small horse pulling a big carriage" metaphor found in online forums, which suggests that African nations are too economically backward to support the "perfect administration and a legal system left by the Western colonialists." The author dismantles this fatalism, pointing out that the "small horse" argument assumes "that the only objective is growth, and that the main consideration is speed."

This is a crucial intervention. Kuo argues that "certain features of a legal system—such as strong worker protections, regardless of employer—may appeal to many Ethiopians, even if those features potentially reduce the rate of economic growth." The author concludes that the debate is not about whether Ethiopia can afford a robust legal system, but whether it is willing to accept a slower, perhaps more dignified, path to development.

"Many people might not mind a slightly longer, slightly slower trip to 'development,' if they can spend it in a nicer carriage."

Bottom Line

Kuo's commentary succeeds in reframing the "law versus development" debate from a technical legal dispute into a fundamental question of sovereignty and human dignity. The strongest part of the argument is its refusal to accept the premise that legal protections are merely impediments to growth, instead highlighting how they define the quality of that growth. The biggest vulnerability lies in the political reality: as long as the immediate pressure for infrastructure and capital outweighs the abstract value of justice, the "small horse" metaphor may continue to dominate policy. Readers should watch for how other nations in the Global South navigate this same tension as Chinese investment continues to reshape their legal landscapes.

Deep Dives

Explore these related deep dives:

  • Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins

    This 1938 Supreme Court decision fundamentally shifted liability rules for industrial accidents, illustrating the article's central argument about how legal frameworks were deliberately engineered to prioritize railroad expansion over individual compensation.

  • Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.

    This landmark tort case established the doctrine of proximate cause and duty of care, illustrating the specific legal mechanism judges used to deny recovery to victims of indirect, unforeseeable chain-reaction injuries during the era of rapid industrialization.

  • Law and development

    This mid-20th century initiative, which sought to export Western legal institutions to the Global South as a catalyst for economic growth, provides the exact historical backdrop and intellectual framework that Miriam Driessen critiques in her analysis of Ethiopia's legal struggles.

Sources

Law versus development

by Kaiser Kuo · Sinica · Read full article

Reviewing Immunity on Trial, by Miriam Driessen (University of California Press, 2026).

A few months into their first semester, students in U.S. law schools will often notice the following: not too long ago, a disturbingly large number of Americans were injured, maimed, or killed in incidents involving trains. In Erie Railroad Company v. Tompkins (1938), a landmark case in civil procedure, a man walking near a rail line is struck by an open door of a passing train. He falls beneath the tracks, and ends up losing an arm. In Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Company (1928), a favorite case among torts professors, a woman on a station platform suffers from an extraordinarily unlucky series of events. A man running to catch a train carries a box, which he drops; the box contains fireworks, one of which explodes; the explosion causes a scale to topple over, which falls onto the woman’s head; several days later, shaken from the events, she develops a stammer.

These train injuries formed one small part of a much larger pattern. Across the late 1800s and early 1900s, Americans witnessed profound changes in how the U.S. economy worked. Some changes arose from new technology, such as trains. Others arose from new business techniques, such as the formation of massive monopolies. During this period, a major question for lawyers, judges, and legislators was how to build a legal system that could encourage industrialization without causing too much social disruption. The legal regime we in the United States have inherited from that era is the result of decades of debate over the following questions: How much pain should be tolerated in the name of economic growth? And who should bear it?

In the United States, those questions have receded from public debate. By the end of World War II, the United States had established itself beyond question as one of the world’s most “developed” countries. That status became only more deeply entrenched in the 1990s, with the end of the Cold War. Questions about development have of course continued to percolate among some corners of the legal profession, and critics have persistently raised concerns that the U.S. legal system frustrates economic advances. (This was the basic point of Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson’s Abundance; twenty years earlier, prominent legal scholar Robert Kagan made a similar observation, when he pointed out that American public works often get weighted down ...