| Abstract: |
Development economics in its early years created the image of a fierce fight
between advocates of contrasting theories or approaches- " balanced growth "
vs. " unbalanced growth " or " program loans " vs. " project loans. " This
view has the merit to highlight such conflicts in great detail; yet it fails
to take into account the reality of development economics as it was practiced
in the field. This paper reassesses these old conflicts by complementing the
traditional focus on theoretical debates with an emphasis on the practice of
development economics.A particularly interesting example is the debate between
Albert Hirschman, one of the fathers of the " unbalanced growth " approach,
and Lauchlin Currie, among the advocates of " balanced growth " on how to
foster iron production in Colombia in the 1950s. An analysis of the positions
held by these two economists shows that they were in fact much less
antithetical than is usually held and, indeed, were in some fundamental
aspects surprisingly similar. Debates among development economists during the
1950s thus must be explained-at least partially-as the natural dynamics of an
emerging discipline that took shape when different groups tried to achieve
supremacy-or at least legitimacy-through the creation of mutually
delegitimizing systemic theories. |