Is industrialization becoming a matter of National Security?

The geopolitical reality show us that the era of hyper-globalization where capital moved solely for efficiency is over. We are now in an era of Securitization.

Foreign investments in a port in Peru, in mining in Argentina or a processing plant in Paraguay, are not just seeking ROI; they are seeking a strategic foothold.

In synthesis, a country that does not have an industrial plan is simply a part of someone else's plan. Being "market-neutral" does not mean letting the market decide; it's letting another country’s state-led strategy decide their national future.

The "Free Market" advice was often a "Do as I say, not as I do" strategy. While developing nations were encouraged to maintain "level playing fields," established powers are now doubling down on massive industrial policies (CHIPS Act, Green Deal) to protect domestic interests.

It is not enough to attract FDI through tax breaks, that's a "Race to the Bottom" competition in where a country subsidizes the profits of global giants without capturing the "spillovers" needed to build a resilient economy.

Back to the "Developmental State"?
The "Architect State" vs. the "Resource Colony"
In a world of "Friend-shoring" and "Decoupling," countries are being forced to choose their roles.

The Passive State becomes a "Resource Colony"—a provider of lithium, soy, or copper. This leads to the Middle-Income Trap, where growth happens but development stalls.

Modern planning, with a State as an architect and strategic partner isn't about the State running factories; it's about the state designing the ecosystem where factories must thrive.

Development is a race of "Roots vs. Rents," countries should be asking not "How much money came in?" they should be focus on "How much capability stayed?"