In the Theoretical Mainstream

Abstract

The classical and neoclassical theories constitute the intellectual backbone of the ‘forced’ strategies. Economists adhering to this impressively consistent body of hypotheses may object to the imputation that their theory has normative implications. At least, the choice of the theory as a strategic device would be considered to be strictly independent from the theory which is understood as being descriptive-explanatory. Such response would faithfully accord with the old tradition (which was brought to a climax in the ‘new welfare economics’) that economics has to describe what is and not to prescribe what should be. By no means is the economist qua economist in a position to make value judgements or to draw policy inferences from his descriptive-explanatory insight. Besides the evident fact that this itself implies a value judgement, the view suggests an ‘objective’ science. It may suffice in the context of this study to stress that the classical and neoclassical theories, once stated, are not without normative implications. By propounding, first, that the body of the classical and neoclassical hypotheses explains European history, and, second, that this experience may be telescoped in Asia, the original descriptive-explanatory theory has normative implications. Clearly, if development is desirable, and the corresponding expectations rely on the blueprint of Western experience, the proposition that a repetition of Western experience is feasible along the lines propounded by classical and neoclassical theory can hardly fail to have strong bearings on policy-making.