Send message to Contributor

Contribution short abstract:

This paper draws out ontological inconsistencies in development's status as a unique sub-discipline of economics. I argue that its existence is predicated on geopolitical grounds, and refute plausible differentiating characteristics that could justify its separation from other fields of economics.

Contribution long abstract:

Economists devote substantial resources to ideating notions of optimal social organization. However, the discipline allocates remarkably few to the study of its own institutions — and the implications of those structures for the form that scientific output takes. This paper addresses this deficiency by considering critically the question of whether development can and should stand unique as a sub-discipline of economics. First, drawing on seminal work by Lionel Robbins, I propose and discuss a definition of development as an analytic category, drawing out its ontological peculiarities vis-á-vis other sub-disciplines of economics. Then, through a critical review of the post-war intellectual history of economic development, I discuss the usefulness and uniqueness of development’s core themes, arguing that remarkably little in principle separates the field from others in economics. Finally, I reflect on the utility and future of development economics, arguing that its existence justifies a paradigm where the lives and livelihoods of a vast majority of the world’s population are discounted against those of a small group of countries in the Anglo-European “core”. I thus propose a merger of the fields and institutions of development with labor, health, and other sub-disciplines, contending that development commands a historical legacy duly unfit for a vastly evolved economic and political praxis.