Development Economics and Structuralist Macroeconomics
Show Less

Development Economics and Structuralist Macroeconomics

Essays in Honor of Lance Taylor

Edited by Amitava Krishna Dutt

Lance Taylor is widely considered to be one of the pre-eminent development economists in the world and is known for his work on development planning, macroeconomics of development, stabilization policy, and the global economy. He has also been the major force behind structuralist economics, which is seen by many to be a major alternative to orthodox development economics and policy prescriptions. The essays in this volume, written by well-known scholars in their own right, make contributions to each of these areas while honoring the contributions made by Lance Taylor.
Buy Book in Print
Show Summary Details
You do not have access to this content

Chapter 3: An essay on late structuralism

Bill Gibson


Bill Gibson* INTRODUCTION In this chapter I examine the scope and method of the structuralist school in an attempt to identify precisely how it differs from the neoclassical system, in both its mode of analysis and its criteria for validity. There are four conclusions reached: first, the work of Taylor and his followers can be seen as a coherent outgrowth of not only Latin American structuralism, as is often observed (Jameson, 1986), but also the European or early structuralism of Levi-Strauss (2000), Godelier and Piaget (Godelier, 1972), and Piaget (1971). The early work, both Latin American and European, focused on rigidities and frictions in local economies (Chenery, 1975) while in the late structuralism of Taylor and his followers, theory not only must account for the ‘macrofoundations’ of behavior, but also global foundations, that is the constraints the evolution of the global system itself imposes on the players. Third, late structuralism is often criticized as ad hoc theory because it is not grounded in optimization models (Agénor and Montiel, 1996). I argue that the ad hocery of structuralism is not an accident but a logical consequence of what it defines as its theoretical object and what it considers valid methods by which the theory is codified. The fourth and perhaps most contentious proposition of this chapter is the claim that the nature of structuralist theory naturally leads to numerical simulation modeling as its principal empirical tool. This will not be entirely surprising to some since the simulation...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information

or login to access all content.