W. Arthur Lewis and New World: Variations within the Analytic Framework of Neoclassical Economics

Substantively, the broad disagreements between the NWG and W. Arthur Lewis reflected technical rather than fundamental differences, as the main disagreements were internal to neoclassical economic theory. Lewis was aware that imperialism (1870-1945) retarded and/or constrained the space for capital...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Hilbourne A. Watson
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Stockholm University Press 2009-12-01
Series:Iberoamericana: Nordic Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies
Online Access:http://www.iberoamericana.se/articles/81
id doaj-d0a63fe2bf9e424095fb25412440d7d7
record_format Article
spelling doaj-d0a63fe2bf9e424095fb25412440d7d72020-11-24T21:20:06ZengStockholm University PressIberoamericana: Nordic Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies0046-84442002-45092009-12-01381-2497910.16993/ibero.8175W. Arthur Lewis and New World: Variations within the Analytic Framework of Neoclassical EconomicsHilbourne A. Watson0Bucknell University, USASubstantively, the broad disagreements between the NWG and W. Arthur Lewis reflected technical rather than fundamental differences, as the main disagreements were internal to neoclassical economic theory. Lewis was aware that imperialism (1870-1945) retarded and/or constrained the space for capital accumulation in the colonies and that it produced and/or intensified economic inequality and limited social transformation in most colonies; however, this was not an original insight. Lewis said, the “backwardness of the less developed countries of 1870 could be changed only by people prepared to alter certain customs, laws, and institutions, and to shift the balance of political and economic power away from the old landowning and aristocratic classes.” He stressed that “the imperial powers ... allied themselves with the existing power blocs. They were especially hostile to educated young people whom, by means of a color bar, they usually kept out of positions where administrative experience might be gained, whether in the public service or in private business…. One result of this was to divert into a long and bitter anti-colonial struggles much brilliant talent which could have been used creatively in development sectors” (Lewis 1978: 214, quoted in Frieden 2006:91; see Girvan 2005; Boulding 1951: 216).http://www.iberoamericana.se/articles/81
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Hilbourne A. Watson
spellingShingle Hilbourne A. Watson
W. Arthur Lewis and New World: Variations within the Analytic Framework of Neoclassical Economics
Iberoamericana: Nordic Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies
author_facet Hilbourne A. Watson
author_sort Hilbourne A. Watson
title W. Arthur Lewis and New World: Variations within the Analytic Framework of Neoclassical Economics
title_short W. Arthur Lewis and New World: Variations within the Analytic Framework of Neoclassical Economics
title_full W. Arthur Lewis and New World: Variations within the Analytic Framework of Neoclassical Economics
title_fullStr W. Arthur Lewis and New World: Variations within the Analytic Framework of Neoclassical Economics
title_full_unstemmed W. Arthur Lewis and New World: Variations within the Analytic Framework of Neoclassical Economics
title_sort w. arthur lewis and new world: variations within the analytic framework of neoclassical economics
publisher Stockholm University Press
series Iberoamericana: Nordic Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies
issn 0046-8444
2002-4509
publishDate 2009-12-01
description Substantively, the broad disagreements between the NWG and W. Arthur Lewis reflected technical rather than fundamental differences, as the main disagreements were internal to neoclassical economic theory. Lewis was aware that imperialism (1870-1945) retarded and/or constrained the space for capital accumulation in the colonies and that it produced and/or intensified economic inequality and limited social transformation in most colonies; however, this was not an original insight. Lewis said, the “backwardness of the less developed countries of 1870 could be changed only by people prepared to alter certain customs, laws, and institutions, and to shift the balance of political and economic power away from the old landowning and aristocratic classes.” He stressed that “the imperial powers ... allied themselves with the existing power blocs. They were especially hostile to educated young people whom, by means of a color bar, they usually kept out of positions where administrative experience might be gained, whether in the public service or in private business…. One result of this was to divert into a long and bitter anti-colonial struggles much brilliant talent which could have been used creatively in development sectors” (Lewis 1978: 214, quoted in Frieden 2006:91; see Girvan 2005; Boulding 1951: 216).
url http://www.iberoamericana.se/articles/81
work_keys_str_mv AT hilbourneawatson warthurlewisandnewworldvariationswithintheanalyticframeworkofneoclassicaleconomics
_version_ 1726003888251731968