Conclusion

Rather than summarizing our summary of a large literature, we conclude with three comments.

First, the field of development economics seems to be alive and well. Hirschman’s (1981) obituary, written at the end of the third phase, seems to have vastly exaggerated the rumours of its demise, as is suggested by the outpouring of research in the different strands of the most recent phase.

Second, there exists a fair amount of pluralism within development economics, argua­bly more so than is in existence in other fields of economics. Chenery (1975), for instance, distinguished between neoclassical, Marxist and structuralist approaches, where the first two attempt to adapt systems of thought initially applied to developed economies to less developed economies, and the last “attempts to identify specific rigidities, lags and other characteristics of the structure of developing economies” (ibid.: 310) which are generally ignored in the neoclassical approach. Bardhan (1988) partitions the subject in a similar manner, distinguishing between neoclassical, Marxist and structuralist-institutionalist approaches, recognizing that each is a portmanteau category. In Bardhan’s view, the neoclassical approach analyses economic behaviour in terms of maximizing individuals, the Marxist emphasizes structural constraints and the importance of class, and the struc­turalist approach stresses the structures of particular economies (for instance, the impor­tance of oligopoly and sectoral divisions) and structural differences between economies. There are, in fact, many ways in which one can divide the sub-discipline, according, for instance, to differences in: method (for instance, using mathematical models using the optimizing agent, or broad political economy analysis emphasizing the role of class dif­ferences); views of the economy (for instance, whether the markets work efficiently or the economy is rife with structural rigidities); strategies (for instance, whether free market or government intervention is the best approach) and meanings of development, as dis­cussed in the sixth strand of the most recent phase (see Dutt 1992).

Third, despite this greater pluralism, there are some convergent tendencies, in at least three senses. One, in policy discussions, there is the overwhelming dominance of the neo­classical free market view, although with some recognition of government intervention to reduce poverty and provide infrastructure. Two, in terms of methods, there seems to be the dominance of the neoclassical optimization and formal econometric approaches. Despite this dominance, there are also vibrant heterodox literatures which have adopted broader political economy analysis and neo-structuralist modelling methods. Three, in both orthodox and heterodox literatures, there seems to be convergence in the sense of movement away from extreme views in debates concerning state intervention versus free market policies (with growing recognition of the synergistic role of markets and the state), and concerning growth versus distribution, poverty and human development, and on the need for incorporating broader institutional and political economy issues beyond narrowly economic ones. It is to be hoped that the convergence towards neoclassical methodology and policy will give way to convergence of the third kind rather than to the sharp pendulum swings of the past in terms of views of the economy, strategies and goals of development. That, and greater methodological pluralism, are arguably the best means of ensuring that development economics continues to flourish and focus on the vitally important task of facilitating development in poor countries and improving the lot of the poor.

Amitava Krishna Dutt