Contentious Perspectives to Address Development Challenges in the Third World: Comparing Deepak Lal with Kiren Aziz Chaudhry (original) (raw)

2016, Naval Postgraduate School - Comparative Political Economic Systems

The ideas of economic growth and economic development have been very intriguing but commonly confused phenomena. Whereas economic growth is an objective concept that can readily be measured, economic development is a normative fact whose measurement is challenging, but very important to economists (Perkins et al. 2013, 23). Economic growth—which is commonly measured by gross domestic product (GDP)—is not sufficient, but necessary, for economic development. Hence, the desired objective for poor countries is not merely economic growth, but economic development. As quoted by Perkins et al., Amartya Sen states that “the goal of development is to expand the capabilities of people to live the lives they choose to lead” (2013, 39). The ultimate aim of the economic development, therefore, is to reduce poverty, improve human welfare, and achieve economic growth (Deaton 2013). Even though there is a consensus on the end goals of economic development, how poor countries achieve and maintain economic development is a debatable question that economists try to answer. Some, known as neo-classical economists, claim that the general principles of free-market economics have universal applicability and there is no need for a separate body of economics. Others, known as development economists, argue that the peculiarities of poor countries, particularly the lack of government power and institutional infrastructure, necessitate tailor-made government action. This paper will compare the ideas of two leading figures in this debate: Deepak Lal and Kiren Aziz Chaudhary.