Content area
Full text
(ProQuest: ... denotes non-US-ASCII text omitted.)
Introduction
After a period of neo-liberal predominance in thinking about development, there is renewed criticism of beliefs in self-regulating markets, a smaller state, and the rejection of ambitious forms of income redistribution. Moreover, there is a developing critique of looking at countries as single units that compete under the same conditions to achieve development. One can see a new search for structural answers, notably regionalism and multilateralism, in recognition of the 'importance of interstate cooperation to construct a new global order'.1 Again, 'development' is not only regarded as a result of each country's adaptation to 'correct' market orientation strategies but also as a response to changes in the architecture of the global economic and political system.
This re-evaluation is welcome, but one should be careful not to reinvent the wheel. In our view, the current debate on world political economy could benefit from a review of former thinkers on development and their insertion in the international organizations that helped to foster their ideas. This article thus analyses the process of creation and diffusion of development ideas from the perspective of two 'pioneers in development',2 namely Gunnar Myrdal (1898-1987) and Raúl Prebisch (1901-86).
The works of Prebisch and Myrdal exhibit an evolution of their development thinking, with complex links between national and international levels. At the national level, they were directly involved in outlining development strategies for their respective countries, Argentina and Sweden. At the international level, they were prominent members of international organizations, particularly those related to the United Nations (UN) system. They were, among other things, the architects of two UN regional organizations, the Economic Commission for Latin America (CEPAL)3 and the Economic Commission for Europe (ECE). Through their deep engagement at CEPAL and the ECE, they were pioneers not only in development but also in linking the national level to the international through regional entities.
There is much truth in the notion that the UN's structure and agenda was (and is) deeply influenced by the hegemonic interests and ideas of big powers,4 but it is also true that the UN played a central role as the 'institutional home' in which heterodox ideas on economic policy and theory were elaborated and diffused. Studies...