Conclusions
This chapter has shown the enormous amount of work done by development economists at Oxford, spanning the whole period in which development economics has been practised, the very rich array of concepts, theories and evidence produced, and the attention to every level of economic development, from the global, to macro, to village studies, to micro analysis of firms and the household.
The methodology adopted has evolved towards the use of more sophisticated methods, and towards recognition of the need for a multidisciplinary approach. Economists at Oxford have contributed to almost every major issue confronted by developing countries and development economists over the years. These include the role of technology in development; redefining development objectives; innovating methods for cost-benefit analysis; challenging inward and interventionist policies; exploring the impact of macro adjustment policies on poverty; analysing the causes of conflict; introducing new ways of measuring poverty; and exploring gender roles within the household, among many other issues touched on above. However, perhaps the weakest aspect of development economics at Oxford has been a neglect of environmental issues.In this survey, we have shown that there is no single school of development economics at Oxford. Rather, we have observed several approaches, with two often dominant—one emphasising Keynesian, structuralist and interventionist approaches, and the other adopting a neoclassical framework and arguing for market orientation.
Development economists at Oxford have contributed to policy-making nationally and internationally. Many have advised the UK's development ministry, some in prominent positions, such as Paul Streeten in the 1960s and Stefan Dercon, Adrian Wood and Valpy FitzGerald fifty years later, while Paul Collier has been a regular adviser to UK governments at the highest level.
Also, Oxford economists have advised numerous governments in developing countries in every region of the world. Internationally, Oxford economists have worked with the World Bank, the IMF and many UN agencies. They have helped determine the policies of UNDP, UNCTAD, UNIDO, UNICEF, the International Labour Organization (ILO), UNRISD, the Inter-American Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank and the African Economic Research Consortium, as well as chairing and guiding the UN's Committee on Development Policy. In so doing, they have helped transform the terms of the global debate, contributing to changes in policy, such as the basic needs approach taken up by the World Bank in the late 1970s, the move away from interventionist policies towards the market adopted by the World Bank in the 1980s, a focus on the rising poverty associated with adjustment policies also in the 1980s, the human development approach of the UNDP in the 1990s and after, and multidimensional poverty measurement adopted by the UNDP and many governments in the 2000s.With these undoubted achievements in mind, it is time now to consider the role of development economics over the coming decades.
When economists started to analyse the economies of developing countries in the early post-colonial era, most thought it was obvious that development economics was “different” from economics applied to so-called advanced countries because of differences in resources, knowledge, flexibility and adaptability, social constraints and human behaviour. Hence, the call for different concepts, models and theories—exemplified by Streeten at Oxford—and the need to take into account structural factors and inequality as they affected economic relations, especially at the international level, a particular focus of economists working on Latin America.
Yet, this view was increasingly challenged by economists adopting a neoclassical framework, such as Ian Little, Deepak Lal and others, which gained strength with the displacement of Keynesianism by neoclassical economics in economics departments of the developed world generally. Indeed, Albert Hirschman and Lal, from very different perspectives, both wrote of the “death” of development economics in the 1980s (Hirschman 1982; Lal 1983).
At Oxford, this was exemplified by the change in name of the MSc devoted to developing economies from an MSc in “Development Economics” to an MSc in “Economics for Development”. The transformation of many developing economies that occurred over three-quarters of a century covered in this chapter perhaps also endorses the view that a “different” type of economics is no longer appropriate or needed.A more universal approach, encompassing rich as well as poor countries, is emerging. The changes in objectives—first, from growth to capabilities and human development, and then to sustainable (environmentally responsible) development (to which Oxford development economists have contributed)— apply to all countries. Many of the concepts, initially developed in the context of developing economies, such as the “informal sector”, “horizontal inequalities”, “structural constraints”, have turned out to be equally applicable to developed country economies. A number of the problems confronting economists examining developing economies are universal—such as inequality, poverty, inadequate employment opportunities, and environmental destruction. The political obstacles to what seems to be rational policy do not respect North-South boundaries. The importance of context for understanding change applies the world over. Methodologies—the use of mixed methods, including anthropological and historical studies, game playing, randomised approaches, and the use of panel data—are universally applicable. The need for multidisciplinarity, drawing on history, anthropology, political science and sociology, is as compelling in advanced as in developing country contexts.
A further reason for universalising development economics is the neocolonial aroma that hangs over the idea of development economics in which people in one part of the world (the richer part) analyse what is happening in the poorer part, and tell the governments there how their economies work and what they should do. This approach was a natural one as colonialism ended, which left many countries with very limited skills and education, and power still firmly in the North.
But today, the dominantly one-way flow involved is becoming increasingly unacceptable, especially as economists in developing countries are numerous and sophisticated.All this suggests that we now need to move beyond development economics to a more universal approach, and, from this point of view, development economics as such is becoming outdated. This is not to endorse the view that neoclassical economics has all the answers, as Deepak Lal implied—indeed the reverse. Rather, we need to draw on the findings of development economists about understanding context and structural constraints for economics in general.
Oxford development economics is indeed already moving in this direction. Joint work with scientists in developing countries is becoming more common; analysis of developed countries along with developing is beginning to occur; and most economists would agree that context matters. However, institutions have not caught up, in Oxford or elsewhere. Over the next seventy years, it is likely that we will develop problem-oriented institutions—such as those already in existence in the energy, environmental, area studies and social policy fields in Oxford—and that we transform the institutions devoted to development studies to institutions which study economic structures, constraints and change the world over.