Ideology and method in the history of development economics.

Abstract

This work attempts to explain the appearance and disappearance of the subdiscipline within the mainstream of economics called development economics, by focusing on the relation among theory, ideology, and method. From this perspective, neoclassical economics is seen as a project that has evolved with some cohesion among these three interrelated elements; and development economics can be seen as an attempt to break out of the boundaries delineated by the neoclassical project in order to understand the problems of underdeveloped countries. This attempt, which drew on both classical and Keynesian approaches, is examined in light of the ideological and methodological changes associated with the evolution of neoclassical economics from its classical predecessor. The post-World-War II restructuring of the international economy under U.S. dominance, and changes in U.S. foreign policy toward the underdeveloped world are also seen as influencing the path of development economics. The decline of development economics is examined as a process of ideological and methodological displacement, in contrast to the generally accepted view that the need for a separate subdiscipline for the study of underdeveloped countries was disproven in both theory and practice. This process is shown to involve a reining in of the boundaries of legitimate theoretical analysis, and a reconceptualization of the market and the state. The synchronic universalism of the neoclassical project was restored, closing off avenues of inquiry that the earlier development economists had approached, most importantly with respect to the problems of late industrialization and other asymmetrical relations between the center and periphery of the world economy.