----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
 
Pedro Teixeira wrote: 
 
<<In terms of pioneers on development economics there were clear division,  
since the outset. On the one hand, those that believed that this could and  
should be a different type of economics. On the other hand, those that  
thought that despite some adjustments, the basic framework of  
neoclassical/standard economics could be effectively applied.>> 
 
I don't think the strict adherents to the classical and neoclassical "theories" of growth
and development would agree. Smith, for example, was an analyst and an inductionist who
with his WON attempted to tell the universal story of how economies were empirically
built. The idea that there is another way contrary to the collective propositions of
classical and neoclassical growth "theory," the notion that Smith's WON is a book of
purely abstract theories which may or may not be successfully applied is therefore really
a burden that the detractors of classical and neoclassical economics must carry, but
certainly not a point of controversy with the adherents.
 
Chas Anderson 
 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]