Why do some nations prosper while others remain mired in poverty or stagnation? Why do countries that once showed promise -- like Argentina or South Africa -- struggle to sustain momentum? And what allows certain countries, such as Japan or China, to achieve lasting economic transformation?

These are among the most enduring puzzles in political economy, eluding definitive answers even today. Moreover, for countries like Bangladesh, which aspires to undergo transformative change in the coming decades, these inquiries are not only intrinsically essential but instrumentally fundamental.

Despite decades of scholarship, there exists no single convincing theory that fully explains why some countries climb the ladder of development while others slip or remain stuck.

Is it due to geography? Historical injustices? Poor policy choices? Or is the game rigged, with global rules designed by and for the wealthy -- as one can argue after witnessing the ongoing Trump tariff saga.

Some argue that geography -- landlocked borders, harsh climates and limited natural resources -- act as structural constraints. Others point to external domination, citing colonial exploitation in India or decades-long sanctions in Cuba as key reasons for economic decline or stagnation.

Then there is the internal dimension: how domestic elites shape institutions to extract rents rather than foster innovation and productivity. The Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly Zaire), with its vast resources but kleptocratic leadership, serves as a textbook example of this phenomenon.

Importantly, these explanations are not mutually exclusive. At different points in history, various combinations of these forces have been at play. Consider Japan under the Tokugawa Shogunate (1603–1868), when isolationist policies limited exposure to trade and technological change. Or India, whose economy withered under British colonial rule -- from contributing nearly 25 percent to the global GDP in 1757 to less than 5 percent by 1947.

And yet, other nations have managed to pivot. Japan's Meiji Restoration in 1868 marks a dramatic reversal: the state realigned its priorities to support export-oriented industries like silk and shipbuilding, integrating into the global economy. Similarly, China's economic reforms post-1978, driven by a strong political mandate, unlocked decades of sustained industrial growth and poverty reduction.

The lesson here is not that there's a universal recipe for development, but rather that success often hinges on a country's capacity to adapt. High-performing nations do not avoid setbacks altogether; rather, they possess the institutional resilience to minimise downturns and capitalise on global opportunities. They actively reshape their domestic economies to align with shifting global demand, embedding themselves in global value chains. For developing nations seeking transformative change like Bangladesh, the imperative is twofold.

First, they must rigorously analyse specific barriers -- be they structural, institutional, or political -- that are impeding their progress. Second, they must engage in cautious yet bold experimentation, crafting policies and building institutions that foster competitiveness, innovation and global integration.

Above all, policymakers must recognise that the forces impeding development are dynamic and context-specific. There is no universal roadmap. What worked for South Korea or Singapore may not work elsewhere. A deep, historical understanding of one's own developmental constraints, paired with a willingness to adapt and learn, is essential. Thus, to truly attain transformative developmental change, nations must shed both the fatalism of structural determinism and the allure of simplistic policy mimicry. Only then can they chart a course that is both nationally rooted and globally relevant.

The author is the principal economist of the Policy Research Institute of Bangladesh. He can be reached at [email protected].