Skip Navigation

Cambridge Journal of Economics 2005 29(6):1111-1128; doi:10.1093/cje/bei074
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Shin, J.-S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Related Collections
Right arrow B00 - General
Right arrow O10 - General
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Cambridge Political Economy Society. All rights reserved.

Article

The future of development economics: a methodological agenda

Jang-Sup Shin*

* National University of Singapore

Address for correspondence: Department of Economics, National University of Singapore, 1 Arts Link, Singapore 117570; email: ecssjs{at}nus.edu.sg

Abstract

This paper discusses methodological differences between universalism and particularism in development economics by focusing on the ‘East Asian Miracle’ debate. It proposes to build development economics as part of hetero-economics, not mono-economics, following Max Weber's methodology of social science, and suggests developing intermediate theories by abstracting directly from given comparative settings. It also discusses the limitations that are inherent in this method, as well as ways to employ the method in actual analyses. This paper argues that the future task of development economics lies in recombining existing theories and developing new, complementing theories that will systematically delineate the diversity of developing countries.

Key Words: Development economics • Diversity • Methodology • East Asia • Max Weber

JEL classifications: B00, O10

Manuscript received January 7, 2004; final version received May 11, 2005.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.