Search results

The objective of this paper is to focus on the evolution of development economics, both as an academic discipline and as a subject taught at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels, at the University of Manchester, from approximately the early‐1950s onwards. It is not a history or survey of development economics per se but concentrates rather on the richness and variety of the contributions made by a number of eminent economists while they were in the Department of Economics (since 1993, the School of Economic Studies), to both the development of theory and to empirical analysis and to policy prescription, and to the teaching of development economics. Only a limited account is given of the work of these economists once they were no longer in Manchester.

This article provides a detailed investigation of how Lewis revisited classical and Marxian concepts such as productive/unproductive labor, economic surplus, subsistence wages, reserve army, and capital accumulation in his investigation of economic development. The Lewis 1954 development model is compared to other models advanced at the time by Harrod, Domar, Swan, Kaldor, Solow, von Neumann, Nurkse, Rosenstein-Rodan, Myint, and others. Lewis applied the notion of economic duality to open and closed economies.

This paper discusses the role of Albert O. Hirschman as a founder of development economics in the postwar years. Although Hirschman maintained a strong interest in development matters throughout his entire professional career, his major contributions to development economics took place between the mid-1950s and the late 1960s. The paper examines Hirschman’s innovative contributions to the new discipline. When, in the 1950s, development economics gravitated around the concept of “balanced growth,” Hirschman opened new vistas with a theory of “unbalanced growth.” In the early 1960s, Hirschman focused on reformist political approaches to development, against the opposed extremisms of reaction and revolution. Finally, in the late 1960s, Hirschman opened new perspectives on the importance of detailed analysis of development projects, against the theoretical drift of early development economics.

The discussion of Hirschman’s development career is also an opportunity to observe the gap between theoretical debates and development policies. Whereas development economists often clashed on theoretical issues, their views were remarkably closer on practical questions.

As a pioneer of development economics, Hirschman sought to establish it as a discipline theoretically distinct from mainstream economics. By the 1980s, this project had collapsed, and the development question was reabsorbed by the economic mainstream. This article, however, argues that current development debates remain deeply indebted to Hirschman’s contribution. His reformist vision, rejection of one-size-fits-all solutions, his insistence on the ineluctable role of uncertainty, and his search for country-specific, incremental, and evolutionary policies make his approach central to current development discourse.

Aim of the present monograph is the economic analysis of the role of MNEs regarding globalisation and digital economy and in parallel there is a reference and examination of some legal aspects concerning MNEs, cyberspace and e‐commerce as the means of expression of the digital economy. The whole effort of the author is focused on the examination of various aspects of MNEs and their impact upon globalisation and vice versa and how and if we are moving towards a global digital economy.

Development economics is a new sub-discipline in modern economics. The first generation of development economics is structuralism. The second generation of development economics is neoliberalism. Most developing countries followed the above two generations of development economics and failed to achieve industrialization and modernization. The purpose of this paper is to introduce the third generation of development economics, called new structural economics, which advises governments in developing countries to play a facilitating role in the development of industries in a market economy according to the country’s comparative advantages. The paper also discusses how the government may use industrial policies to play this facilitating role and some new theoretical insights from new structural economics.

The paper draws on the experiences of success and failure in developing countries to generate new understanding about the nature and causes of economic development in developing countries.

The structuralism failed because it ignored the endogeneity of economic structure in a country. The neoliberalism failed because it neglected the endogeneity of distortions in the transition economies.

The paper proposes new policy and theoretical framework for developing countries.

This paper critically reviews and analyzes the trends in waqf studies within the Islamic economics literature. It analyzes the recent developments and debates in waqf reform and advances the argument for prioritizing research on waqf economics; the waqf dimension that is concerned with modelling how to utilize it to enhance productivity, consumption, redistribution, investment and saving, and generally contribute sustainably towards poverty reduction, economic empowerment and development.

The paper is conceptual in nature, focusing on a systematic historical analytical review of waqf studies in Islamic economics literature.

Despite the documented historic role of waqf in constructing the Muslim socio-economic architecture as the third economic sector and a mechanism for civilizational development and renewal, it received little attention in the early writings on modern Islamic economics. While the past one decade has witnessed a renewed interest in waqf research, most studies focus on its legal, juristic and administrative aspects in addition to the nostalgic reflections on its past glories. Little attention is comparatively given to the socio-economic aspect, which represents the actual raison d’être for its institutionalization.

An important task ahead of the current generation of Islamic economists is to formulate waqf-based development models that are rooted in proper diagnosis and deep understanding of the current socio-economic realities of the OIC member countries for the purpose of uplifting living standards and stimulating sustainable socio-economic development.

The paper contributes to the debate on priorities in waqf studies and practice and can trigger further discourses and research on the future of research in waqf economics.

Clem Tisdell is one of Australia’s pre‐eminent economists who has made decisive contributions in several areas of economics, perhaps most notably development economics, environmental economics and natural resource economics. Tisdell is presently Professor of Economics at the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia, and is also a long‐standing member of the editorial advisory board of the International Journal of Social Economics. This interview, which falls in the tradition of Klamer, was recorded in his Brisbane home in November 1995 and seeks to explore Tisdell’s extraordinary career, the development of his thinking about economics in general and his prodigious research output in particular. Tisdell answered the questions in his customary quietly‐spoken and good‐humoured manner.