ROUTLEDGE LIBRARY EDITIONS:

DEVELOPMENT

DEVELOPMENT THEORY
This page intentionally left blank
DEVELOPMENT THEORY
Four Critical Studies

Edited by
DAVID LEHMANN

Volume 104
 First published in 1979 by Routledge
This edition first published in 2014
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada
by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 USA
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 1979 Taylor & Francis

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or

utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now
known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any
information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the
publishers.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN 13: 978-0-415-58414-2 (Set)

eISBN 13: 978-0-203-84035-1 (Set)
ISBN 13: 978-0-415-60208-2 (Volume 104)
eISBN 13: 978-0-203-83539-5 (Volume 104)

Publisher’s Note
The publisher has gone to great lengths to ensure the quality of this reprint but
points out that some imperfections in the original copies may be apparent.

Disclaimer
The publisher has made every effort to trace copyright holders and welcomes
correspondence from those they have been unable to contact.
DEVELOPMENT
THEORY
Four Critical Studies

Edited by

David Lehmann

FRANK CASS
 First published 1979 in Great Britain by
FRANK CASS AND COMPANY LIMITED
Gainsborough House, Gainsborough Road,
London, E ll IRS, England

and in the United States of America by

FRANK CASS AND COMPANY LIMITED
c/o Biblio Distribution Centre
81 Adams Drive, P.O. Box 327, Totowa, N.J. 07511

Copyright © 1979 Frank Cass & Co. Ltd.

ISBN 0 7146 3094 2 (Case)

ISBN 0 7146 4029 8 (Paper)

A ll Rights Reserved. No part o f this publication may be

reproduced by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior
permission o f Frank Cass and Company Limited in writing.
 Contents

P reface vii

I n t r o d u c t io n David Lehmann 1

T h e M e a n in g o f D e v e l o p m e n t ,
W it h a P o s t s c r ip t Dudley Seers 9

A C r it iq u e o f D e v e l o p m e n t E c o n o m ic s
in t h e U.S. E. Wayne Nafziger 32

M o d e r n is a t io n , O r d e r a n d t h e E ro sio n o f a
D e m o c r a t ic I d e a l Donal Cruise O’Brien 49

S o c io l o g y o f U n d e r d e v e l o p m e n t versu s
S o c io l o g y o f D e v e l o p m e n t ? Henry Bernstein 77
This page intentionally left blank
 Preface

Over the past few years the Journal of Development Studies has published
several articles which, taken together, represent a substantial critique of
the theories and approaches which pass for orthodoxy in the study of
development and underdevelopment. We have therefore decided that these
articles should be published together and the articles by Donal Cruise
O’Brien and Wayne Nafziger, published first in 1972 and 1976, are re­
printed in their original form. Dudley Seers has added a post-scriptum on
the ‘New Meaning of Development’ to his ‘Meaning of Development’,
published in 1972. Henry Bernstein, whose ‘Modernization Theory and the
Sociological Study of Development’ dates from 1971, has written a com­
pletely new piece for this volume, which now presents a Marxist critique
of both the ‘conventional sociology of development’ and the ‘radical
sociology of underdevelopment’.
D a v id L e h m a n n

v ii
This page intentionally left blank
 Introduction*

The essays published in this volume, taken together, constitute little less
than an indictment of twenty or thirty years of theory and practice in the
economics, sociology and politics of development. Or so it would appear.
Further reflection would remind us that the indictment is almost exclusively
directed at Anglo-Saxon theories, that those theories do have their de­
fenders, but above all that the study of development is potentially one of
the most creative areas in social science today, although, at the level of
theory, that potential has still largely to be realized. The reasons for this
can be sought in the relationship between ‘development studies’ and the
development (or lack thereof) of social, economic and political theory in
the period since the Second World War.
The mainstream concerns of development theory as described and
criticized in these pages are not different in fundamental ways from the
concerns of the ‘founding fathers’ of social science in the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries. Evolution, the division of labour, industrialism, class
conflict and social cohesion, the conditions for the emergence of capitalism,
the relations between state and civil society; the relations between theory
and practice, and between the scholar and politics; and in economics, the
‘optimum allocation of resources’, the concept of comparative advantage
and the theory of international trade, and the terms of trade between
industry and agriculture. There are also echoes of nineteenth century
Russian debates, between slavophiles and westernizers, between populists
and marxists. This is hardly surprising, for the development of social
science in the last century was in large part an effort to interpret the
process of industrialization, and industrialization is a central concern of
the study of development, even among its opponents. Whether this
element of continuity between the traditions of social science and the
theory of development testifies to sterility and stagnation, or to the abiding
nature of the founding fathers’ concerns is not clear, for other features of
the relationship do testify to a questioning of or at least a departure from
those same traditions—at least in the form in which they have been ‘given
and inherited’ and passed on by modern sociology and economics. The
ambiguities of the relationship are numerous, and we shall see that the
‘critical’ element in development studies can also be viewed as a reflection
of criticisms of a purported orthodoxy which range across all the social
sciences. It is merely unfortunate that what starts out as radical questioning
tends so often to end up as a restatement, occasionally in ever-more-
obscure language, of time-honoured formulations.
The study of development began in an era of optimism and growing
prosperity for the advanced countries, and that climate is reflected in the

*1 am grateful to John Toye for comments on an earlier draft.

1
2 DEVELOPMENT THEORY

subject’s early concern for evolution and stability. Within a short space of
time, however, it has fathered a radicalism which, in part at least, reflects
the peculiar political involvement of social scientists in the political life of
underdeveloped countries, as well as more general challenges to orthodox
social theory—an orthodoxy which must rank as one of the shortest-lived
in the history of social thought, having been removed from a position of
hegemony to one of merely powerful influence in twenty years. It does not
require an inordinately deep reading of the essays in this book to grasp a
strong undercurrent of policy, or, better, political issues ; it is difficult to
believe that the authors would have been moved to make their analyses
had they not felt at the time deep dissatisfaction with patterns of develop­
ment they had observed, and had they not wished to discover a more
egalitarian and autonomous pattern for the future. This concern and
involvement which lie so close to the surface of writing on development
problems are not a defect but a virtue, and are one (but only one) element
which makes the subject so potentially creative. In advanced societies
intellectuals rarely have easy access to the well-established policy-making
machines, or to the closely knit networks of civil servants and apparatchiki
and the politicians who are so heavily dependent upon them (Wildavsky
and Heclo, 1974). Intellectuals are not, for those who occupy positions of
power, a sensitive political group. In underdeveloped countries, in contrast,
intellectuals are highly sensitive, and both local and foreign social scientists
are taken seriously, if only to repress them ; they may not ultimately have
much independent influence on policies, but they do take part in the
discussion of policy. Occasionally, as when they act as emissaries of some
international institutions, their influence is substantial—for better or for
worse. The involvement of social scientists in a far more ‘wide open’ arena
than that available to them in the policy-making apparatuses of advanced
countries, draws them into political and intellectual confrontations from
which they are protected both in the groves of academe and in their forays
into the predictable world of government administration and consultancy.
The opportunities and consequences are not unambiguous. The oppor­
tunity to ‘advise a government’ in a poor country may yield illusions of
grandeur, resulting in the application of dogmatic models by professionals
who are not willing to assume the responsibility for the political impli­
cations or preconditions of their advice. Evidently, governments choose
advisers whom they find politically congenial, and to some extent
whose advice they can safely predict, but this does not convert the
adviser into an agent without responsibility. There are some quite frighten­
ing examples of technocrats’ political ventriloquism: the prescription of
draconian stabilization policies is an obvious example. The economic
strategy followed by General Pinochet with the support and advice of
Professors Harberger and Friedman and their pupils illustrates the
thinness of the line between naivety and cynicism. Inverse examples are
found in a progressive technocratism which advocates egalitarian policies
in countries where the political conditions for their adoption are scarcely
conceivable in the foreseeable future. Thus the ILO reports on employment
to which Dudley Seers refers in his post-scriptum on the New Meaning of
Development, and the pessimism of Clive Bell in his chapter on politics in
the World Bank’s Redistribution with Growth (Chenery et al. 1974). In
Cuba, where ‘progressives’ might have found a more receptive audience,
Charles Bettelheim, Ernest Mandel and, in a different vein, René Dumont,
INTRODUCTION 3

spoke to deaf ears—though there is some evidence that Dumont’s Is Cuba

Socialist ?, vilified in public, was carefully noted in private.
The drawback of concern with policy is that it may attract attention
away from wider theoretical issues insofar as it encourages research to
concentrate on problems defined by national or international bureaucracies
in terms of their definition of situations or their ideological or propagand­
ists requirements. (Note the dizzy succession of fashions which plagues
the field: industrialization, employment, income distribution, basic needs
etc. etc.) But it is not at all clear that exclusively theoretical reflection has
yielded many returns either, as witness the inapplicability of ever more
sophisticated planning models, or the arrested development which, as
Henry Bernstein shows, has been the fate of ‘dependency theory’ (see also
Leys, 1977). It is also instructive to return to Jonathan Levin’s classic
Export Economies, published in 1960, which says in a calm fashion,
adducing a mass of Peruvian and Burmese evidence, most of what
structuralists and dependentistas have subsequently said in more thun­
derous language.
Little work on development is today conducted outside university and
national or international bureaucracies. The age of unbureaucratized but
highly political dissidence is passed, but it is not clear that today’s more
‘professional’ environment, which to some extent protects and legitimizes
dissidence, produces better results. However strong his political inspiration,
the social scientist working in a university or bureaucracy is inhibited from
stating the political strategies entailed by the policies he or she produces.
The political ventriloquism of the right is mirrored on the left. For
example, it is asked how international institutions and banks could be
persuaded to finance redistributive economic policies, and these insti­
tutions are heavily criticized for boycotting some left-wing governments;
but a more realistic approach, based on harsh experience, to this question,
would assume that these institutions (which finance so many intellectuals-
cum-experts) will be at best indifferent to the pursuit of redistribution in all
but very exceptional cases and that the international climate as a whole
will be hostile. A second example concerns the internal implications of
redistribution: frequently, redistribution, or its attempt, generates an
inflation which threatens to reverse the entire process as well as provoke
the overthrow of the government which impelled it; the use of rationing in
order to prevent such a reversal requires a degree of centralization of
economic control and of political mobilization rarely considered in policy
blueprints. Beyond questions of strategy, the absence of political theory in
the discussion of development is particularly noticeable. The experience of
underdeveloped countries may cast doubt on the assumptions of Western
social theory, but this is as nothing compared with the havoc it wreaks
with the normative concepts which underlie our political institutions.
The study of development is not the most prestigious in the social
science profession. Not infrequently it is confined to ‘area studies’ where
interdisciplinarity, which has a low professional esteem, fails to achieve its
promise. The results too often are ‘undisciplinarity’. The institutional
organization of social science contributes to the fossilization of theoretical
models; this, plus the relegation of interdisciplinary work to a low status
inhibits the cross-fertilization called for by development studies. The
difficulty does not lie entirely at the level of disciplines, for the boundaries
between them are ultimately founded upon models of social action and
4 DEVELOPMENT THEORY

human behaviour, and barriers of communication between disciplines

may well be underlain by barriers of communication between different
theories. Interdisciplinary barriers do not appear insurmountable, for
there are marxist sociologists and marxist economists, there are perfect
competition models of politics as there are in economics. (Toye 1976). But
the institutional organization of disciplines surely endows the bearers of
orthodoxy with the power to deny respectability to critical activity and
thus confines it to the institutional underworld of dissidence where,
concentrating its energies on tasks of destruction, its growth is stunted.
Meanwhile, the study of development is in danger of becoming a ghetto in
which embattled ideologies pursue their mutual destruction without
offering any prospect of the proclaimed ‘new synthesis’.
The authors of the theories criticized in these essays are not prominent
students of the development process, but rather prominent social scientists
who have conducted ‘forays’ into the field. Few of them have conducted
any sustained empirical research in a poor country. Modernization
theories are adaptations of a specific reading—Talcott Parsons’ reading
expounded in his Structure of Social Action—of Weber and Durkheim.
One writer who places himself in that same school and yet has made a
major contribution to the understanding of social processes in an under­
developed country is Fred Riggs, who spent many years in South-East
Asia. Riggs’ remarkably perceptive ethnography of bureaucratic and
political power (see Cruise O’Brien’s essay) survives even his own attempts
to force his interpretation into a structural-functional framework by using
the terminology of optics (see the first hundred pages of Administration in
Developing Countries: the Theory.of Prismatic Society.) A similar exception
is Robin Luckham’s study of the Nigerian Military, which stands out
among studies emerging from the model of professionalization first
developed and later propagated by Morris Janowitz. Luckham’s dissatis­
faction with that approach has since led him to develop a marxist theory
for the study of the military and the international weapons trade (Luckham,
1977).
Among marxists the divorce between theoretical development and
empirical research is no less observable. Established in opposition to an
orthodoxy which may reflect the prejudices and interests of the powerful
but has had little ultimate intellectual success, the modern marxist critique
has attracted many adherents as a critique; but as the basis for empirical
investigation or of policy it has yet to yield results.
The empirical work which most inspires marxist critiques is that of
historians such as Barrington Moore, Eric Hobsbawm and Perry Anderson,
or that of non-marxist, though also non-neo-classical, economists who
have laid bare the operations of multinational corporations (Vaitsos,
1973; Vernon, 1973), or who have undertaken detailed work on the
relationship between income distribution and growth (Fishlow, 1972;
Bacha and Taylor, 1978; Kuznets, 1955). In policy, marxists have recourse
to the Soviet industrialization debate, which may be considered the first
modern debate on development policy (Erlich, 1960; Lewin, 1968;
Preobrazhensky, 1965) or to current Chinese experience (Paine, 1976)
expressed in a language far removed from the abstractions of dependencia
or the conceptualization of modes of production (Hindess and Hirst, 1975).
The Soviet debate, which finds later incarnations in Indian debates about
the relations between agriculture and industry (Byres, 1974; Lipton, 1977;
INTRODUCTION 5

Mitra, 1977) is certainly one of the most fruitful in development studies,

and one of the rare cases in which a marxist approach to the formulation
of questions casts more light on policy-makers’ problems than do other
approaches (see my review of Lipton, which tries to show that urban-
rural relations are better formulated in marxist terms than in neo-classical
ones, Lehmann, 1977).
Returning to the level of theory, it is possible that the polemics in
development studies are reflections of arguments being conducted in the
social sciences as a whole. It is not correct to claim that the various
orthodoxies are challengeable only because they are ‘inapplicable’ to
underdeveloped countries. There may be many other reasons. If it turns
out that what is wrong is the general social or economic theory on which
theories of modernization or economic development are founded, then
the theory of development becomes an academic issue. One might there­
fore ask whether the study of society and economy in underdeveloped
countries requires or can produce a theoretical apparatus with the follow­
ing characteristics:

(a) which provides a comprehensive framework for the analysis of social pro­
cesses resulting from the incorporation o f new territories, societies and
polities into the world economic and political system, and
(b) which includes enough variables on which to base explanations of variations
observed in this process o f incorporation.

It is surely enough merely to state this agenda in order to realize that any
theory of development which is neither teleological nor functionalist is
highly unlikely to succeed. It is therefore hardly surprising to note the
strong element of teleology in many theories of development, even in those
which profess an opposition to teleology and functionalism. One must
distinguish, as Henry Bernstein does, implicitly, between the hitherto
unfruitful theories of development and theories applied to the study of
social and economic structures of underdeveloped countries. It is in the
attempt to draw from the tradition of social science (as interpreted by
Parsons) a theory applicable to the Third World as a whole and to the
totality of social processes within it that failure has been most evident.
More limited—but nevertheless ambitious—enterprises, such as those of
Barrington Moore and Perry Anderson, who confine themselves to class
relations and politics, turn out to be firmly in the traditions of Marx and
Weber, to find favour with the critics of orthodoxy and to lack that
aspiration to the infinite which characterized the theory of modernization.
One may therefore wonder whether the limits of development theory have
lain in the globality of its project rather than in its theoretical origins.
The creative potential of development studies arises precisely from
those features thereof which I have discussed and on whose dangers I have
insisted perhaps too much: the inescapable political involvement, the
difficulty of confining an analysis to one particular discipline, and the
possibility it offers of comparative study and of extracting generalizations
therefrom. The theories criticized in this volume relied on a comparison of
today’s advanced countries and their history with the social and economic
structure of underdeveloped countries, but in the future we may see more
and more comparative study between different countries and regions of
the Third World, thus enriching the subject substantially.
6 DEVELOPMENT THEORY

W h a t, then, m ight the ‘crisis’ in the d ev elo p m en t studies, if it exists,

consist of? A t the level o f pu re th e o ry it w ould be the p ro d u c t o f a m o re
general crisis o f the social sciences. If by ‘crisis’ is m e an t simply a situ atio n
in which d o m in a n t theories are being challenged, then this is a h ealthy
situ atio n , a n d n o t such a rare one. We assum e all to o easily th a t, before
th e mid-sixties, there was a p erio d o f calm in which stru ctu ra l-fu n c tio n a l
sociology an d neo-classical econom ics occupied a hegem onic position.
P erh ap s, b u t if so it was a sh o rt period, an d a lth o u g h stru ctu ra l-fu n c tio n -
alism m ay have been hegem onic in the U nited States, it never p en etrated
th e g reat walls o f English em piricism . T h e sy m p to m s o f crisis s h ou ld
r a th e r be seen in the failure o f self-styled critical, radical an d alternative
ap p ro a c h e s to generate a new th eo retical a p p a ra tu s, an d in the possible
absence o f suitable co n d itio n s for the p ro d u ctio n o f such an altern ativ e;
fo r the projected alternatives occasionally bear u n ca n n y resem blances to
theories w hich have gone before: thus the parallels between A lth u sserian
m arxism a n d functionalism itself, b o th o f which in terp re t social p h e n o m e n a
in term s o f their co n trib u tio n to the m a in ten an ce o f ‘th e system ’— a w ord,
w hich like so m an y key w ords in social science, can so u n d nice 01* nasty
d ep e n d in g on the co n tex t in which it is uttered.

REFERENCES
Perry Anderson: Passages from Antiquity to Feudalism, London, New Left Books, 1974.
Perry Anderson: Lineages o f the Absolutist State, London, New Left Books, 1974.
Edmar Bacha and Lance Taylor: “ Brazilian Income Distribution in the 1960’s: Model
Results and the Controversy” , Journal o f Development Studies, XIV, 3, April 1978.
T. J. Byres: “ Land Reform, Industrialization and the Marketed Surplus in India: an
essay in Rural Bias” , in David Lehmann (ed.): Agrarian Reform and Agrarian
Reformism, London, Faber and Faber, 1974.
Hollis Chenery et al.: Redistribution with Growth, London, Oxford University Press,
1974.
René Dumont: Cuba, est-il Socialiste?, Paris, Seuil, 1970.
Alexander Erlich: The Soviet Industrialization Debate, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard
University Press, 1960
Barry Hindess and Paul A. Hirst: Pre-capitalist Modes o f Production, London,
Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1975.
Simon Kuznets: “ Economic Growth and Income Inequality” , American Economic
Review, XLV, March 1955.
Albert Fishlow: “Brazilian Size Distribution of Income” , American Economic Review,
LXII, pp. 391-402, May 1972.
David Lehmann: “ Neo-classical Populism” , Peasant Studies, VI, 4, October 1977.
Moshe Lewin: Russian Peasants and Soviet Power, London, Allen and Unwin, 1968.
Jonathan Levin: The Export Economies, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press,
1960.
Colin Leys: “ Underdevelopment and Dependency: Critical Notes” , Journal o f
Contemporary Asia, VII, 1, 1977.
Michael Lipton: Why Poor People Stay Poor: Urban Bias in World Development,
London, Temple Smith, 1977
Robin Luckham: The Nigerian Military, London, Cambridge University Press, 1971.
Robin Luckham: “ Militarism: Force, Class and International Conflict” , Bulletin of
the Institute of Development Studies, IX, 1, July 1977.
Robin Luckham: “ Militarism: Arms and the Internationalisation of Capital” , ibid.
VII, 3, March 1977.
Ashok Mitra: Terms o f Trade and Class Relations, London, Frank Cass, 1977.
Barrington Moore Jr.: The Social Origins o f Dictatorship and Democracy, Boston,
Beacon Press, 1967.
INTRODUCTION 7

Suzanne Paine: “ Balanced Development: Maoist Theory and Chinese Practise” ,

World Development, April 1976.
Talcott Parsons: The Structure o f Social Action, Glencoe, The Free Press, 1949.
E. Preobrazhensky: The New Economics, London, Oxford University Press, 1965.
Fred Riggs: Administration in Developing Countries: the Theory o f Prismatic Society
Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 1964.
John Toye: "Economic Theories of Politics and Public F inance” , British Journal o f
Political Science, VI, pp. 433-447, October 1976.
Constantin Vaitsos: Intercountry Income Distribution and the Transfer o f Technology
London, Oxford University Press, 1973.
Raymond Vernon: Sovereignty at Bay, Harmondsworlh, Penguin, 1973.
Aaron Wildavsky and Hugh Heclo: The Private Government o f Public Money, London
Faber and Faber, 1974.
Introduction
*
Perry Anderson : Passages from Antiquity to Feudalism, London, New Left Books, 1974.
Perry Anderson : Lineages of the Absolutist State, London, New Left Books, 1974.
Edmar Bacha and Lance Taylor : “Brazilian Income Distribution in the 1960’s: Model Results and the Controversy”, Journal of Development Studies, XIV, 3, April 1978.
T. J. Byres : “Land Reform, Industrialization and the Marketed Surplus in India: an essay in Rural Bias”, in David Lehmann (ed.): Agrarian Reform and Agrarian Reformism, London, Faber and Faber, 1974.
Hollis Chenery et al. : Redistribution with Growth, London, Oxford University Press, 1974.
René Dumont : Cuba, est-il Socialiste?, Paris, Seuil, 1970.
Alexander Erlich : The Soviet Industrialization Debate, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1960
Barry Hindess and Paul A. Hirst : Pre-capitalist Modes of Production, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1975.
Simon Kuznets : “Economic Growth and Income Inequality”, American Economic Review, XLV, March 1955.
Albert Fishlow : “Brazilian Size Distribution of Income”, American Economic Review, LXII, pp. 391–402, May 1972.
David Lehmann : “Neo-classical Populism”, Peasant Studies, VI, 4, October 1977.
Moshe Lewin : Russian Peasants and Soviet Power, London, Allen and Unwin, 1968.
Jonathan Levin : The Export Economies, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1960.
Colin Leys : “Underdevelopment and Dependency: Critical Notes”, Journal of Contemporary Asia, VII, 1, 1977.
Michael Lipton : Why Poor People Stay Poor: Urban Bias in World Development, London, Temple Smith, 1977
Robin Luckham : The Nigerian Military, London, Cambridge University Press, 1971.
Robin Luckham : “Militarism: Force, Class and International Conflict”, Bulletin of the Institute of Development Studies, IX, 1, July 1977.
Robin Luckham : “Militarism: Arms and the Internationalisation of Capital”, ibid. VII, 3, March 1977.
Ashok Mitra : Terms of Trade and Class Relations, London, Frank Cass, 1977.
Barrington Moore Jr .: The Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy, Boston, Beacon Press, 1967.
Suzanne Paine : “Balanced Development: Maoist Theory and Chinese Practise”, World Development, April 1976.
Talcott Parsons : The Structure of Social Action, Glencoe, The Free Press, 1949.
E. Preobrazhensky : The New Economics, London, Oxford University Press, 1965.
Fred Riggs : Administration in Developing Countries: the Theory of Prismatic Society Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 1964.
John Toye : “Economic Theories of Politics and Public Finance”, British Journal of Political Science, VI, pp. 433–447, October 1976.
Constantin Vaitsos : Intercountry Income Distribution and the Transfer of Technology London, Oxford University Press, 1973.
Raymond Vernon : Sovereignty at Bay, Harmondsworlh, Penguin, 1973.
Aaron Wildavsky and Hugh Heclo : The Private Government of Public Money, London Faber and Faber, 1974.

The Meaning of Development

Bardhan, Pranab K. , 1970, ‘On the Minimum Level of Living and the Rural Poor’, Indian Economic Review, Vol. 5, April.
Clark, Colin , 1937, National Income and Outlay, London: Macmillan.
Divatia, V. V. , and Bhatt, V. V. , 1969, ‘On Measuring the Pace of Development’, Quarterly Review, Banco Nazionale del Lavoro, No. 89, June.
Fonseca, A. J. , 1970, ‘The need-based Wage in India: A Computerized Estimate’, reprinted from Wage Policy and Wage Distribution in India, Bombay: University of Bombay.
I.L.O. , 1970, Towards Full Employment, Geneva: International Labour Office.
Jaffe, A. J. , 1969, ‘Notes on Family Income Distribution in Developing Countries in Relation to Population and Economic Changes’; paper given at meeting of International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, August; to be published in Estadistica, Inter-American Statistical Institute, No. 104.
Jolly, Richard , 1969, Planning Education for African Development, Nariobi: East Africa Publishing House.
Jolly, Richard , and Seers, Dudley , 1970, ‘The Brain Drain and the Development Process’, proceedings of the International Economic Association Conference to be published in E. A. G. Robinson (ed.), The Gap Between the Rich and the Poor Countries, London: Macmillan.
Kuznets, Simon , 1966, Modern Economic Growth, Studies in Comparative Economics No. 7, New Haven: Yale University Press.
Kuznets, Simon , 1971, Economic Growth of Nations: Total Output and Production Structure, Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap.
Lydall, Harold , 1968, The Structure of Earnings, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Minhas, B.S. , 1970, ‘Rural Poverty, Land Redistribution and Development’, Indian Economic Review, Vol. 5, April.
Mishan, E. J. , 1967, The Costs of Economic Growth, London: Staples Press.
Patel, Surrendra , 1964, ‘The Economic Distance Between Nations’, Economic Journal, Vol. 74, March.
Rowntree, B. Seebohm , 1901, Poverty: A Study of Town Life, London: Macmillan.
Sametz, A. W. , 1968, ‘Production of Goods and Services: The Measurement of Economic Growth’ in E. Sheldon and W. B. Moore (eds.), Indicators of Social Change: Concepts and Measurements, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Scrimshaw, N. S. , and Gordon, J. E. (ed.), 1968, Malnutrition, Learning and Behaviour, Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.
Seers, Dudley , 1971, ‘The Transmission of Inequality’ in Robert K. A. Gardiner (ed.), Africa and the World, London: Oxford University Press.
Stewart, Frances , and Streeten, Paul , 1971, ‘Conflicts between Output and Employment Objectives’ in Ronald Robinson and Peter Johnston (eds.), Prospects for Employment Opportunities in the Nineteen Seventies, London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
Townsend, Peter (ed.), 1970, The Concept of Poverty, London: Heinemann.
UNRISD , 1969, Research Notes No. 2, July, Geneva: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development.

A Critique of Development Economics in the U.S.

Adelman, I. , 1974, ‘On the State of Development Economics’, Journal of Development Economics, Vol. 1, No. 1.
Amin, S. , 1972, ‘Underdevelopment and Dependence in Black Africa’, Journal of Peace Research, No. 2.
Baran, P. A. , 1957, The Political Economy of Growth, New York: Monthly Review, Press.
Baran, P. A. , 1969, The Longer View—Essays Toward a Critique of Political Economy, New York: Monthly Review Press.
Bernstein, H. , 1971, ‘Modernization Theory and the Sociological Study of Development’, Journal of Development Studies, Vol. 7, No. 2.
Bruton, H. J. , 1965, Principles of Development Economics, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Chenery, H. B. , 1964, ‘Objectives and Criteria of Foreign Assistance’ in G. Ranis , ed., The United States and the Developing Economies, New York: W. W. Norton, Co.
Curry, R. L. , 1973, ‘Technology Transfer to Africa: The Role of Multinational Corporations’, Paper presented to the African Studies Association, November.
Dos Santos, T. , 1970, ‘The Structure of Dependence’, American Economic Review, Vol. 60, No. 2.
Dube, S. C. , 1955, Indian Village, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Enke, S. , 1963, Economics for Development, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Erasmus, C. J. , 1954, ‘An Anthropologist Views Technical Assistance’, The Scientific Monthly, Vol. 78, No. 3.
Firth, R. and B. S., Yamey , ed., 1964, Capital, Saving and Credit in Peasant Societies, Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co.
Frank, A. G. , 1969, Latin America: Underdevelopment or Revolution—Essays on The Development of Underdevelopment and the Immediate Enemy, New York: Monthly Review Press.
Gordon, L. and Grommers, E. , 1962, United States Manufacturing Investment in Brazil, Boston: Harvard Business School.
Griffin, K. B. , 1969, Underdevelopment in Spanish America—An Interpretation, Cambridge, MIT Press.
Griffin, K. B. , 1972, ‘Pearson and the Political Economy of Aid’, in T. J. Byres , ed., Foreign Resources and Economic Development, London: Frank Cass.
Hagen, E. E. , 1962, On the Theory of Social Change, Homewood: Dorsey Press.
Hagen, E. E. , 1968, 1975, The Economics of Development, Homewood: Richard D. Irwin.
Higgins, B. , 1968, Economic Development, New York: W. W. Norton.
Higgins, B. , 1973, ‘Book Reviews of Dualistic Economic Development: Theory and History’, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 11, No. 4.
Hill, P. , 1968, ‘The Myth of the Amorphous Peasantry: A Northern Nigerian Case Study’, Nigerian Journal of Economic and Social Studies, Vol. 10, No. 2.
Kindleberger, C. P. , 1965, Economic Development, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Knight, F. , 1941, ‘Anthropology and Economics’, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 49, No. 2.
MacDougall, G. D. A. , 1960, ‘The Benefits and Costs of Private Investment from Abroad: A Theoretical Approach’, Economic Record, March.
Maddison, A. , 1971, Class Structure and Economic Growth: India and Pakistan Since the Moghuls, New York: Norton.
Marx, K. , 1904, A Critique of Political Economy, trans. N. I. Stone , Chicago: Kerr and Co.
Meier, G. M. , 1970, Leading Issues in Economic Development, New York: Oxford University Press.
Meier, G. M. and Baldwin, R. E. , 1957, Economic Development: Theory, History, Policy, New York: John Wiley.
Merton, R. K. , 1972, ‘Insiders and Outsiders: A Chapter in the Sociology of Knowledge’, The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 78, No. 1.
Mikesell, R. F. , ed., 1962, U.S. Private and Government Investment Abroad, Eugene: University of Oregon Books.
Morgan, T. , 1975, Economic Development: Concept and Strategy, New York: Harper and Row.
Müller, R. , 1973, ‘The Multinational Corporation and the Underdevelopment of the Third World’, in Charles K. Wilber , ed., The Political Economy of Development and Underdevelopment, New York: Random House.
Myrdal, G. , 1957, Economic Theory and Underdeveloped Countries, London: Gerald Duckworth.
Myrdal, G. , 1968, Asian Drama: An Inquiry into the Poverty of Nations, 3 vols., Middlesex: Penguin.
Nafziger, E. W. , 1975, ‘Class, Caste and Community of South Indian Industrialists: An Examination of the Horatio Alger Model’, Journal of Development Studies, Vol. 11, No. 4.
Nafziger, E. W. and Richter, W. L. , 1976, ‘Biafra and Bangladesh: The Political Economy of Secessionist Conflict’, Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 13, No. 2.
O'Brien, D. C. , 1972, ‘Modernization, Order, and the Erosion of a Democratic Ideal: American Political Science 1960-70’, Journal of Development Studies, Vol. 8, No. 4.
Prebisch, R. , 1962, ‘The Economic Development of Latin America and its Principal Problems’, Economic Bulletin for Latin America, Vol. 7, No. 1.
Rostow, W. W. , 1971, The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto, Cambridge: University Press.
Seers, D. , 1963, ‘The Limitations of the Special Case’, Bulletin of the Oxford Institute of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 25.
Singer, H. W. , 1950, ‘The Distribution of Gains Between Investing and Borrowing Countries’, American Economic Review, Vol. 40, No. 2.
Thorner, D. and Thorner, A. , 1972, Land and Labour in India, Bombay: Asia Publishing House.
Weisskopf, T. E. , 1972, ‘Capitalism, Underdevelopment and the Future of the Poor Countries’, in Jagdish N. Bhagwati , ed., Economics and World Order from the 1970’s to the 1990’s, New York: Macmillan.

Modernization, Order, and the Erosion of a Democratic Ideal

Ahmad, E. , 1971, ‘Revolutionary Warfare and Counterinsurgency’ in Miller and Aya 1971.
Almond, G. , 1970, Political Development: Essays in Heuristic Theory, Boston: Little Brown.
Almond, G. , and J. S. Coleman (Eds.), 1960, The Politics of the Developing Areas, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Almond, G. and G. B. Powell , 1965, Comparative Politics: a Developmental Approach, Boston: Little Brown.
Almond, G. and S. Verba , The Civic Culture, 1963 (1965 abridged), Princeton: Princeton University Press (Boston: Little Brown).
Andreski, S. , 1968, The African Predicament, London: Michael Joseph.
Apter, D. E. , 1965, The Politics of Modernization, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bendix, R. , 1964, Nat ion-Building and Citizenship, New York: Wiley.
Bernstein, H. , 1971, ‘Modernization Theory and the Sociological Study of Development’, in Journal of Development Studies, Vol. 7, No. 2, January.
Binder, L. (Ed.), 1971, Crises and Sequences in Political Development, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Bretton, H. , 1958, ‘Current Political Thought and Practice in Ghana’ in American Political Science Review, Vol. LII, No. 1, March.
Bretton, H. , 1962, Power and Stability in Nigeria, New York: Praeger.
Brzezinski, Z. , 1967, Ideology and Power in Soviet Politics, New York: Praeger.
Chomsky, N. , 1969, ‘Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship’, in American Power and the New Mandarins, London: Pelican.
Deutsch, K. , 1961, ‘Social Mobilization and Political Development’, in American Political Science Review, Vol. LV, No. 3, September.
Deutsch, K. , 1969, Nationalism and its Alternatives, New York: Knopf.
Deutscher, I. , 1949, Stalin: a Political Biography, London: Oxford University Press.
Easton, D. , 1953, The Political System, New York: Knopf.
d'Encausse, H. Carrère , and S. R. Schram (Eds.), 1969, Marxism and Asia: Allen Lane the Penguin Press.
Frank, A. G. , 1966, ‘The Development of Underdevelopment’, in Monthly Review, September.
Friedrich, C. and Z. Brzezinski , 1956, Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy, Harvard: Harvard University Press (revised 1965 by C. Friedrich ).
Huntington, S. P. , 1968, Political Order in Changing Societies, New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Huntington, S. P. , 1971, ‘The Change to Change’, in Comparative Politics, Vol. 3, No. 3, April.
Janowitz, M. , 1964, The Military in the Political Development of New Nations, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kornhauser, W. , 1959, The Politics of Mass Societies, Glencoe: The Free Press.
La Palombara, J. (Ed.), 1963, Bureaucracy and Political Development, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Lenin, V. I. , 1932, The State and Revolution, New York: International Publishers.
Lenin, V. I. , 1944, Selected Works, vol. 2, London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Lerner, D. , 1958, The Passing of Traditional Society, New York: Free Press (1964 new preface).
Leys, C. , 1969, ‘Introduction’ to Leys (Ed.), Politics and Change in Developing Countries, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lipset, S. , 1960, Political Man, London: Heinemann.
Lipset, S. , 1963, The First New Nation: America in Comparative and Historical Perspective, London: Heinemann.
Lynd, S. , 1969, ‘The New Left’, in The Annals, March.
Mailer, N. , 1970, A Fire on the Moon, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Miller, N. and R. Aya (Eds.), 1971, National Liberation: Revolution in the Third World, New York: Free Press.
Millikan, M. F. and D. L. M. Blackmer (Eds.), 1962, The Emerging Nations, London: Asia Publishing House (1st Ed. 1961).
Moore, Barrington Jr. , 1966, Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World, Boston: Beacon Press.
Parsons, T. , 1951, The Social System, Glencoe: Free Press.
Pfeffer, R. M. (Ed.), 1968, No More Vietnams? New York: Harper and Row.
Pool, I. de Sola (Ed.), 1967, Contemporary Political Science: Towards Empirical Theory, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Pye, L. W. , 1962, Politics, Personality and Nation-Building: Burma's Search for Identity, New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Pye, L. W. , 1966, Aspects of Political Development, Boston: Little Brown.
Riggs, F. W. , 1964, Administration in Developing Countries: the Theory of Prismatic Society, Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Rubin, J. , 1970, Do It! Scenarios of the Revolution, New York: Simon and Schuster.
Rustow, D. A. , 1967, A World of Nations: Problems of Political Modernization, Washington: The Brookings Institution.
Rustow, D. A. , 1968, ‘Modernization and Comparative Politics’, in Comparative Politics, Vol. 1, No. 1, October.
Schurmann, F. , 1968, Ideology and Organization in Communist China, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press (second edition, enlarged).
Selznick, P. , 1957, Leadership in Administration, New York: Harper and Row.
Selznick, P. , 1960, The Organizational Weapon. A Study of Bolshevik Strategy and Tactics, Glencoe: Free Press (first edition 1952).
Shils, E. , 1962, Political Development and New States, The Hague: Mouton.
Ward, R. E. , ¡963, ‘Political Modernization and Political Culture in Japan’, in World Politics, Vol. XV, No. 4, July.
Weiner, M. (Ed.), 1966, Modernization, New York: Basic Books.
Weiner, M. , 1967, Party-Building in a New Nation: The Indian National Congress, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Weiss, H. F. , 1967, Political Protest in the Congo, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Welch, C. E. (Ed.), 1967, Political Modernization, Belmont: Wadsworth.
Wolin, S. and J. Schaar , 1970, The Berkeley Rebellion and Beyond, New York: New York Review Book.
Zolberg, A. , 1966, Creating Political Order: The Party-States of West Africa, Chicago: Rand McNally.
Zolberg, A. , 1968, ‘The Structure of Political Conflict in the New States of Tropical Africa’, in American Political Science Review, Vol. LXII, No. 1, March.

Sociology of Underdevelopment vs. Sociology of Development?

Abdel-Malek, A. , 1967, ‘Sociologie du développement national: problèmes de conceptualization’, Revue de l'lnstitut de Sociologie, No. 2/3.
Alavi, H. , 1972, ‘The state in post-colonial societies: Pakistan and Bangladesh’, New Left Review No. 74.
Alavi, H. , 1975, ‘India and the colonial mode of production’, in the Socialist Register 1975 ed. R. Miliband and J. Saville , London.
Amin, S. , 1973, L’échange inégal et la toi de valeur, Paris.
Amin, S. , 1974a, Accumulation on a World Scale, 2 vols., New York and London.
Amin, S. , 1974b, ‘Le capitalisme et la rente foncière’ in La question paysanne et le capitalisme by Amin and K. Vergopoulos , Paris.
Amin, S. , 1974c, ‘Accumulation and development: a theoretical model’, Review of African Political Economy No. 1.
Amin, S. , 1976, Unequal Development, Hassocks, Sussex.
Amin, S. , 1976a, L'imperialisme et le développement inégal, Paris.
Amin, S. , 1977, ‘Capitalism, state collectivism and socialism’, Monthly Review Vol. 29 No. 2.
Aron, R. , 1964, Industrial Society, London.
Arrighi, G. , 1971, ‘The relationship between the colonial and the class structures: a critique of A. G. Frank's theory of “the development of underdevelopment”’, IDEP Dakar, mimeo.
Banaji, J. , 1972, ‘For a theory of colonial modes of production’, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 7 No. 52.
Banaji, J. , 1975a, ‘Modes of production in a materialist conception of history’, Dar es Salaam, mimeo.
Banaji, J. , 1975b, ‘Comment on India and the colonial mode of production’, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 10 No. 49.
Banaji, R. , 1976, ‘Prelude to a critique of Samir Amin’, Dar es Salaam, mimeo.
Baran, P. , 1957, The Political Economy of Growth, New York.
Baran, P. , and P. Sweezy , 1966, Monopoly Capital, New York.
Beckford, G. , 1969, The economics of agricultural resource use and development in plantation economies’, Social and Economic Studies, Vol. 18.
Beckford, G. , 1972, Persistent Poverty, New York.
Bendix, R. , 1967, Tradition and modernity reconsidered’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 9 No. 3.
Bernstein, H. , 1971, ‘Modernization theory and the sociological study of development’, Journal of Development Studies, Vol. 7 No. 2.
Bernstein, H. , 1972, ‘Breakdowns of modernization’, Journal of Development Studies, Vol. 8 No. 2.
Bernstein, H. , 1977, ‘Marxism and African history: Endre Sik and his critics’, Kenyan Historical Review Vol. 5 No. 1.
Bernstein, H. , and Pitt, M. , 1974, ‘Plantations and modes of exploitation’, Journal of Peasant Studies Vol. 1 No. 4.
Bernstein, H. , and Depelchin, J. , 1978, The object of African history. A materialist perspective’, History in Africa Vol. 5.
Blumer, H. , 1966, ‘The idea of social development’, Studies in Comparative International Development Vol. 2 No. 1.
Booth, D. , 1975, ‘André Gunder Frank: an introduction and appreciation’, in Oxaal , Barnett and Booth ed.
Bradby, B. , 1975, The destruction of natural economy’, Economy and Society, Vol. 4 No. 2.
Cardoso, F. H. , 1972, ‘Dependency and development in Latin America’, New Left Review No. 74.
Chodak, S. , 1973, Societal Development, New York.
Chomsky, N. , 1969, American Power and the New Mandarins, Harmondsworth.
Cockcroft, J. D. , Frank, A. G. , and Johnson, D. L. , 1972, Dependence and Underdevelopment, New York.
Cruise O'Brien, D. , 1972, ‘Modernization, order and the erosion of a democratic ideal: American political science, 1969-70’, Journal of Development Studies Vol. 8 No. 3.
Culley, L. , 1977, The State and Economic Development in pro-Marxist theory’, paper presented to the annual conference of the British Sociological Association.
de Kadt, E. , 1974, ‘Introduction’ to Sociology and Development ed. de Kadt and G. Williams , London.
Disney, N. , 1977, ‘Accumulation on a World Scale’, The Insurgent Sociologist Vol. 7 No. 2.
Dore, R. P. , 1976, ‘Editorial’ in IDS Bulletin Vol. 8 No. 2, special issue on ‘Culture Revisited’.
Dos Santos, T. , 1973, ‘The crisis of development theory and the problem of dependence in Latin America’ in Underdevelopment and Development, ed. H. Bernstein , Fiarmondsworth.
Eisenstadt, S. N. , 1966, Modernization: Protest and Change, Englewood Cliffs, N. J.
Eisenstadt, S. N. , 1969, ‘Breakdowns of modernization’ in Readings in Social Evolution and Development ed. Eisenstadt , London.
Eisenstadt, S. N. , ed., 1968, The Protestant Ethic and Modernization, New York.
Emmanuel, A. , 1972, Unequal Exchange, London.
Emmanuel, A. , 1975, ‘Unequal exchange revisited’, Discussion Paper No. 77, Institute of Development Studies, Sussex.
Engels, F. , 1936, Anti-Dühring, London.
Ennew, J. , Hirst, P. , and Tribe, K. , 1977, ‘“Peasantry” as an economic category’, Journal of Peasant Studies, Vol. 4 No. 4.
Foster-Carter, A. , 1974, ‘Neo-Marxist approaches to development and underdevelopment’, in Sociology and Development, ed. E. de Kadt and G. Williams , London.
Frank, A. G. , 1966, The development of underdevelopment’, Monthly Review, Vol. 18 No. 4.
Frank, A. G. , 1967, ‘Sociology of development and underdevelopment of sociology’, Catalyst No. 3.
Frank, A. G. , 1969a, Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America, New York and London.
Frank, A. G. , 1969b, Latin America. Underdevelopment or Revolution, New York and London.
Frank, A. G. , 1972a, Lumpenbourgeoisie: Lumpendevelopment, New York and London.
Frank, A. G. , 1972b, ‘Economic dependence, class structure and underdevelopment policy’, in Cockcroft , Frank and Johnson .
Friedman, J. , 1976, ‘Crises in theory and transformations of the world economy’, Centre for Development Research, Copenhagen, mimeo.
Furtado, C. , 1964, Development and Underdevelopment, Berkeley, Cal.
Gerstein, J. , 1977, ‘Theories of the world economy and imperialism’, The Insurgent Sociologist Vol. 7 No. 2.
Godelier, M. , 1974, ‘On the definition of a social formation’, Critique of Anthropology No. 1.
Hilal, J. , 1970, ‘Sociology and underdevelopment’, University of Durham, mimeo.
Hirst, P. Q. , 1976, Social Evolution and Sociological Categories, London.
Hoogvelt, A. M. , 1976, The Sociology of Developing Societies, London.
Hopkins, A. G. , 1975, ‘On importing André Gunder Frank into Africa’, African Economic History Review Vol. 2 No. I.
Hoselitz, B. F. , 1963, ‘Main concepts in the analysis of the implications of technological change’ in Industrialization and Society ed. Hoselitz and W. E. Moore , Paris.
Hoselitz, B. F. , 1965, ‘The use of historical comparisons in the study of economic development’, in Social Development ed. R. Aron and Hoselitz , Paris.
Hoselitz, B. F. , ed., 1952, The Progress of Underdeveloped Areas, Chicago.
Johnson, D. L. , 1972a, ‘Dependence and the international system’, in Cockcroft , Frank and Johnson .
Johnson, D. L. , 1972b, ‘On oppressed classes’, in Cockcroft , Frank and Johnson .
Journal of Development Studies, 1972, Vol. 9 No. 1, special issue on ‘Science and Technology in Development’.
Kay, G. , 1975, Development and Underdevelopment, London.
Kerr, C. et al. Industrialism and Industrial Man, New York.
Laclau, E. , 1971, ‘Feudalism and capitalism in Latin America’, New Left Review No. 67.
Lamb, R. K. , 1952, ‘Political elites and the process of economic development’, in Hoselitz ed.
Lenin, V. I. , 1960 lIa, ‘A characterization of economic romanticism’, Collected Works, Moscow, Vol. II.
Lenin, V. I. , 1960 lIb, ‘The heritage we renounce’, Collected Works, vol. II.
Lenin, V. I. , 1960 III, The Development of Capitalism in Russia, Collected Works, Vol. III. Lerner, D. , 1958, The Passing of Traditional Society, New York.
Lerner, D. , 1967, ‘Comparative analysis of processes of modernization’, in The City in Modern Africa ed. H. Miner , London.
Levin, J. V. , 1960, The Export Economies, Cambridge, Mass.
Leys, C. , 1977, ‘Underdevelopment and dependency: critical notes’, Journal of Contemporary Asia Vol. 7 No. 1.
Littlejohn, G. , 1977, ‘Chayanov and the theory of peasant economy’ in Sociological Theories of the Economy ed. B. Hindess , London.
Long, N. , 1975, ‘Structural dependency, modes of production and economic brokerage in Peru’, in Oxaal , Barnett and Booth ed.
Long, N. , 1977, An Introduction to the Sociology of Rural Development, London.
Luxemburg, R. , 1963, The Accumulation of Capital, London.
Magdoff, H. , 1972, ‘Imperialism without colonies’ in Studies in the Theory of Imperialism, ed. R. Owen and B. Sutcliffe , London.
Mandel, E. , 1975, Late Capitalism, London.
Marx, K. , 1976, Capital Vol. I, Harmondsworth.
McClelland, D. , 1961, The Achieving Society, New York.
McClelland, D. , 1964, ‘Business drive and national achievement’, in Social Change ed. A. Etzioni and E. Etzioni , New York.
Meillassoux, C. , 1975, Femmes, greniers et capitaux, Paris.
Moore, W. E. , 1963a, Social Change, Englewood Cliffs, N. J.
Moore, W. E. , 1963b, ‘Introduction. Social change and comparative studies’, International Social Science Journal Vol. 15 No. 4, special issue on ‘The Sociology of Development in Latin America’.
Morse, C. et al. , 1969, Modernization by Design, Ithaca and London.
Myint, H. , 1958, ‘An interpretation of economic backwardness’, in The Economics of Underdevelopment ed. A. N. Agarwala and A. P. Singh , New York.
Nettl, J. P. , 1967, Political Mobilization, London.
Nisbet, R. A. , 1969, Social Change and History, New York.
Nove, A. , 1974, ‘On reading André Gunder Frank’, Journal of Development Studies, Vol. 10 No. 3/4.
Nurkse, R. 1953, Problems of Capital Formation in Underdeveloped Countries, Oxford.
O'Brien, P. , 1975, ‘A critique of Latin American theories of dependency’, in Oxaal , Barnett and Booth ed.
Oxaal, I. , Barnett, A. , and Booth, D. , ed., 1975, Beyond the Sociology of Development, London.
Parsons, T. , 1966, Societies. Evolutionary and Comparative Perspectives, Englewood Cliffs, N. J.
Phillips, A. , 1977, ‘The concept of development’, Review of African Political Economy No. 8.
Pilling, G. , 1973, ‘Imperialism, trade and “unequal exchange”: the work of Aghiri Emmanuel’, Economy and Society Vol. 2 No. 2.
Preobrazhensky, E. , 1965, The New Economics, London.
Rey, P.-Ph. , 1973, Les alliances de classes, Paris.
Rey, P.-Ph. , 1976, Capitalisme négrier, Paris.
Rhodes, R. I. , 1969, ‘The disguised conservatism in evolutionary development theory’, Science and Society Vol. 32 No. 3.
Rodney, W. , 1972, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, Dar es Salaam and London.
Rostow, W. W. , 1960, The Stages of Economic Growth, London.
Seers, D. , 1969, ‘The meaning of development’, International Development Review, Vol. 11.
Shivji, I. G. , 1975, Class Struggles in Tanzania, Dar es Salaam and London.
Sik, E. , 1966 and 1974, The History of Black Africa, 4 vols., Budapest.
Singer, H. W. , and Ansari, J. , 1977, Rich Countries and Poor Countries, London.
Smelser, N. J. , 1963, ‘Mechanisms of change and adjustment to change’, in Industrialization and Society ed. Hoselitz and Moore , Paris.
Smelser, N.J. , 1968, ‘Toward a general theory of social change’, in his Essays in Sociological Explanation, Englewood Cliffs, N. J.
Smelser, N. J. , and Lipset, S. M. , 1968, ‘Social structure, mobility and economic development’ in Smelser , Essays in Sociological Explanation.
Sutcliffe, B. , 1972, ‘Conclusion’ in Studies in the Theory of Imperialism ed. Owen and Sutcliffe , London.
Taylor, J. , 1974, ‘Neo-Marxism and underdevelopment—a sociological phantasy’, Journal of Contemporary Asia, Vol. 4 No. 1.
Terray, E. , 1972, Marxism and ‘Primitive’ Societies, New York and London.
Thomas, C. , 1974, Dependence and Transformation, New York and London.
Thorner, D. , Kerblay, B. , Smith, R. E. F. , ed., 1966, A. V. Chayanov: The Theory of Peasant Economy , Homewood, Ill.
Tschannerl, G. , 1976, ‘Periphery capitalist development—a case study of the Tanzanian economy’, Utafiti Vol. 1 No. 1.
Tribe, K. , 1976, ‘Economic property and commodity exchange in the formation of agrarian capitalism’, paper presented to Peasants Seminar, Centre of International and Area Studies, University of London.
Von Freyhold, M. , n.d., ‘The rise and fall of colonial modes of production’ Dar es Salaam, mimeo.
Wallerstein, I. , 1974a, The Modern World System, New York.
Wallerstein, I. , 1974b, ‘The rise and future demise of the world capitalist system: concepts for comparative analysis’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 16.
Warren, B. , 1973, ‘Imperialism and capitalist industrialization’, New Left Review No. 81.
Weber, M. , 1930, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, London.
Weinberg, I. , 1969, ‘The problem of the convergence of industrial societies: a critical look at the state of a theory’, Comparative Studies in Society and History Vol. 11 No. 1.
Weiner, M. , ed., 1966, Modernization, New York.
Wuyts, M. , 1976, ‘On the nature of underdevelopment: an analysis of two views of underdevelopment’, Dar es Salaam, mimeo.