Search

ABSTRACT Contemporary mainstream development economics is an overdetermined product of three historical processes: the late neoclassical turn within mainstream economic theory; transformations within the institutional-discursive matrix of development, from growth-centred policies to poverty alleviation- and good governance-oriented policies; and a broader transition from post-war Keynesian developmentalism (with its variants in the second and third worlds) to existing varieties of neoliberal governmentality. This article assesses the trajectory of development economics through two historical shifts in the theoretical field. The first is from the 'old' school of structural transformation with a focus on sectoral balance and shifts to the 'new' school of structural adjustment programmes with a focus on micro-level incentive problems. The second shift is from the aggressively neoclassical orientation of the 'new' school to that of the contemporary constellation, where what is considered to be 'good' development economics has been gradually reduced to micro-level impact appraisals of developmental projects (the so-called 'randomization approach'), while the broader macro-economic and historical questions are being increasingly handled through methodologically-individualist, late neoclassical models of institutions and growth (the so-called 'new institutionalism'). The article concludes by insisting on the need for a new paradigm of development economics that would not only unearth the conflictual and antagonistic nature of development, but also render it an indispensable dimension of the study of development in a pluralist manner. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper offers a historically contextualised intellectual history of the entangled development of three competing post-war economic approaches, viz the Austrian, Chicago and post-Walrasian schools, as three forms of neoliberalism. Taking our cue from Foucault's reading of neoliberalism as a mode of governmentality under which the social is organised through 'economic incentives', we engage with the recent discussions of neoliberal theory on three accounts: neoliberalism is read as an epistemic horizon including not only 'pro-' but also 'post-market' positions articulated by post-Walrasian economists who claim that market failures necessitate the design of 'incentive-compatible' remedial mechanisms; the Austrian tradition is distinguished from the Chicago-style pro-marketism; and the implications of the differences among the three approaches on economic as well as socio-political life are discussed. The paper maintains that all three approaches promote the de-politicisation of the social through its economisation albeit by way of different theories and policies. © 2013 The Author. Antipode © 2013 Antipode Foundation Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]