Dennis A. Lury
The Journal of Modern African Studies, Vol. 5, No. 4. (Dec., 1967),
pp. 585-586.
In 1962, Dudley Seers published an article, 'Why Visiting Economists
Fail', and followed it in the succeeding year with another, 'The
Limitations of the Special Case', containing a more extensive critique
of the content and teaching of economics. He argued that the economics
taught in the west and adopted in most of the under-developed world
has been evolved in a very special environment, and that it is of 'limited professional relevance for work in other
economies'. In some ways, it was a surprise to find Seers making this
case, since he seemed preeminent amongst those who could produce
models that were plainly related to the circumstances of the countries
under discussion and yet were clearly made with tools from the
economists' kit. One result of the article was that the Centre of
Development Studies at the University of Manchester organised a
conference in April 1964, which was attended by a
number of economists, most of whom had been active in advising the
governments of under-developed countries. The book under review
contains the proceedings of this conference.
Seers' 1963 article is printed at the front of the book. The materials
(articles and oral discussion) which follow are divided into two
parts: 'The State of Knowledge' and 'Teaching Economic Development'.
The most effective contribution is the article by Professor H. Myint
(which has also already been published). His cool tone provides a
welcome relief from the
hectoring strains which disfigure some of the discussion. He
distinguishes between criticisms of the realism of economic theory and
of its relevance. He considers that 'current writings have been
vitiated not merely by the tendency to generalise from the "special
case" of the advanced countries, but also the tendency to generalise
from the "special case" of a particular type of underdeveloped
country'; but he concludes that the theory of allocation of scarce
resources is still relevant.
Miss Peter Ady, in a paper included in the section on 'Teaching Economic Development', shows how a simple model of international trade can be interpreted in the context of development, and believes there is a 'great deal to be gained by making use of certain parts of orthodox economic theory'.
Professor Kurt Martin draws attention to the need to go back again and again to 'certain axioms or basic tools of economic analysis: to the concept of opportunity cost, the ideas of a market, or to propositions about supply and demand '.
The general feeling of the conference (with some notable dissenting voices) seems to have been that the analytic economic approach and at least some parts of economic theory were relevant to under-developed countries provided that adjustments were made to satisfy the needs of realism.
Paul Streeten pointed to four common types of error which had
to be overcome:
1. Adapted ceteris paribus or automatic mutatis mutandis;
2. One-factor analysis;
3. Misplaced aggregation ;
4. Illegitimate isolation.'
Some of the contributions suggest that the teaching of economics
leaves its pupils incapable of the necessary adaptation. Too much is
made of this, and Professor A. H. Hanson, one of the non-economists
present, was right to talk of the economists' unnecessary
'self-flagellation'. To take an example: in his article, Dudley Seers
discusses the concept of the multiplier and points to the necessary
adjustments required before its use. None of the government economic
statisticians I knew working in Africa failed to make these adjustments.
It may be that they were a particularly realistic group; and Seers'
suggestion that all economists should spend at least a year in a
statistical office is well taken. Most of the present discontent is,
however, due to the disappointment of excessive expectations: on the
theoretical side, of a general theory of development; and, on the
practical side, of the speed and extent of the impact of professional
advice on the underlying situation. This dissatisfaction is aggravated by the arrogance and presumption of
a small number of peripatetic practitioners. Seers describes them:
'Many of them have hardly arrived in a country before they are saying: "Well what is wrong with this economy, of course, is ..."or, "What
really needs to be done here is ..." ' No theory or profession is
proof against such behaviour.
DENNIS A. LURY
Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Kent at Canterbury