SHOE Archives

Societies for the History of Economics

SHOE@YORKU.CA

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
[log in to unmask] (Pedro Teixeira)
Date:
Fri Mar 31 17:19:03 2006
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (42 lines)
----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
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 am not sure
that all the names that were mentioned could be included in the same category, especially
since their degrees of dissent were also very different. Besides, I believe that the label
of heterodoxy is sometimes overstressed.
  
In some cases economists became interested as a result of progressive disenchantment with
the fact that economics was becoming increasingly dominated by an orthodoxy. For instance,
some of the people that believed that labour research should keep a more interdisciplinary
approach moved to development issues, attracted by the label of heterodoxy that
development studies were acquiring.
  
Other people that were attracted were those interested in planning (another topic that
dominated a large parte of research on development in those early days), and the potential
(and interest) of applying those techniques to emerging countries (politically and
economically speaking).
  
My guess is that many became interested and acquired knowledge in a context of increasing
international cooperation, on a governmental level or other (such as cooperation between
universities). The case of Lauchleen Currie, and others, fits the first type. People in
Chicago would fit the second one. Their interest and participation on development
activities started very much with projects of cooperation and training with other
educational institutions in Latin America (1952-56). Only later (sixties) they became more
politically involved.
  
Therefore, the origins are very diverse as their training. The dominant areas of previous
expertise among the pioneers were probably international trade, agriculture, and planning.
  
I would add the names of T. W. Schultz, A. Harberger, Jacob Viner, Celso Furtado, and
Lloyd Reynolds, and Frederick Harbison. (several of these are included in the second
volume of the series Pioneers in development).
  
Pedro Teixeira 
University of Porto - Exeter University 
 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask] 

ATOM RSS1 RSS2