Advertisement

New Normative Directions of Socio-Economic Processes

  • K. Dopfer

Abstract

Until this juncture, our analysis has brought into focus some of the major resource relationships. The account has been descriptive-explanatory, not normative. However, any descriptive-explanatory account also has normative implications. For instance, the theoretical insights revealed by classical-neoclassical theory—an emphasis on the process of capital formation with a concomitant transitional process in a two-sectors context—lends corresponding support to a development strategy which is directed toward increased capital formation in the sectors assumed to be relevant for development, viz. the modern sectors. The theoretical account presented here differs quite significantly from the classical-neoclassical theory. Development differentials have been conceived as a major determinant of the current development processes in Asia. The capital-focused view was abandoned in favour of a comprehensive view integrating the relevant variables of the demand side. Beyond this, the socio-economic processes were viewed in a multi-systems context allowing for complex causal interactions among all (not only socio-economic) variables. Consequently, socioeconomic differentials were viewed as having an impact on the population behaviour, which, in turn, has an impact on the socio-economic differentials.

Keywords

Political Economy Capital Formation Productivity Effect Employment Effect Causal Interaction 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    See in particular the contributions by Jan Tinbergen, e.g. his Development Planning (New York: World University Library, 1967).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    See Amilcar O. Herrera, Hugo D. Scolnik et al, Catastrophe o Nueva Sociedad? Modelo Mundial Latinoamericano (Fundacion Bariloche, 1977).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    The works are, in alphabetical order: Irma Adeiman and Cynthia Taft Morris, ‘A Factor Analysis of the Interrelationship between Social and Political Variables and Per Capita Gross National Product’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 79, pp. 555–78; Erik Allardt, ‘A Welfare Model for Selecting Indicators of National Development’, Policy Sciences, no. 4, 1973, pp. 63–74; David E. Christian, International Social Indicators: the OECD Experience’, Social Indicators Research, vol. 1, no. 2, 1974; Jan Drewnowski, On Measuring and Planning the Quality of Life (The Hague: Mouton, 1974);Google Scholar
  4. J. Galtung et al, ‘Measuring World Development’, Alternatives, no. 1, 1975, pp. 131–58 and 523–55; D. V. McGranahan et al, Contents and Measurement of Socio-Economic Development: an Empirical Study (Geneva: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, 1970);Google Scholar
  5. Shlomit Levy and Louis Guttman, ‘On the Multivariate Structure of Well-Being’, Social Indicators Research, vol. 2, 1975, pp. 361–88;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Udo E. Simonis, ‘Social Indicators for Development Planning’, New Asia College Academic Annual, vol. 18, 1976, pp. 221–36;Google Scholar
  7. Hiroshi Takamori and Shoichi Yamashita, ‘Measuring Socio-economic Development: Indicators, Development Paths, and International Comparisons’, op. cit.; Laurence H. Tribe, ‘Policy Science: Analysis or Ideology?’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 1, no. 1, 1972, pp. 66–110, reprinted in Benefit-Cost and Policy Analysis, An Aldine Annual on Forecasting, Decision-Making and Evaluation (Chicago: Aldine, 1973).Google Scholar
  8. 4.
    For a comprehensive discussion see Montek S. Ahluwalia and Hollis Chen-ery, ‘The Economic Framework’, in Redistribution with Growth, Hollis Chenery, Montek S. Ahluwalia, C. L. G. Bell, John H. Duloy, Richard Jolly (eds.) (London: Oxford University Press, 1974) pp. 38–51.Google Scholar
  9. 6.
    See Amartya K. Sen, Choice of Techniques (Oxford: Blackwell, 1968);Google Scholar
  10. and A. S. Bhalla, ‘Investment Allocation and Technological Choice’, in Economic Journal, vol. 74, 1964, pp. 611 ff.;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gustav Ranis, Employment and Income Distribution in Developing Countries, IBRD Staff Working Paper no. 115 (Washington, D.C.: 1971), p. 15 ff.Google Scholar
  12. 7.
    A. S. Bhalla, ‘Choosing Techniques: Handpounding vs. Machine Milling of Rice: an Indian Case’, in Oxford Economic Papers, vol. 17, 1965, pp. 147–57. However, productivity measured in terms of output per hectare of land cultivated shows that small-scale farms are superior to large-scale farms; see, for instance,Google Scholar
  13. Dipak Mazumdar, ‘Size of Farm and Productivity: a Problem of Indian Peasant Agriculture’, Economica, vol. 32. On some problems related to statistical validity and significance see Amartya K. Sen, Employment, Technology and Development (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1975) appendix C, pp. 146–51.Google Scholar
  14. 9.
    See David Morawetz, Employment Implications of Industrialisation in Developing Countries: a Survey, IBRD Staff Working Paper no. 170 (Washington, D.C., 1974) pp. 17 ff.Google Scholar
  15. 10.
    Ronald Soligo, Factor Intensity of Consumption Patterns, Income Distribution and Employment Growth in West Pakistan, 1972, mimeo.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© K. Dopfer 1979

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. Dopfer

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations