Economics, Social Science and Development
Development economics nowadays is mainstream economics applied to poor countries. An examination of the core principles of mainstream economics reveals tremendous strengths, but also tremendous weaknesses. Other disciplines, such as sociology, anthropology and political science, have complementary strengths that suggest a role for them as equal partners in development studies and policy. The argument for a partnership of disciplines is logical and strong. But cross-disciplinarity is not easy in practice. It is best achieved through concrete exercises which demonstrate exactly how “two disciplines are better than one” when analyzing specific policy issues in development.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- George A. Akerlof & Rachel E. Kranton, 2000. "Economics and Identity," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 115(3), pages 715-753.
- T. N. Srinivasan & Jagdish Bhagwati, 1999.
"Outward-Orientation and Development: Are Revisionists Right,"
806, Economic Growth Center, Yale University.
- Srinivasan, T.N. & Bhagwati, J., 1999. "Outward-Orientation and Development: Are Revisionist Right?," Papers 806, Yale - Economic Growth Center.
- Kanbur, Ravi, 2001.
"Economic Policy, Distribution and Poverty: The Nature of Disagreements,"
Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 1083-1094, June.
- Kanbur Ravi, 2001. "Economic Policy, Distribution and Poverty: The Nature of Disagreements," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 7(2), pages 1-26, April.
- Folbre, Nancy, 1986. "Hearts and spades: Paradigms of household economics," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 245-255, February.
- Alderman, Harold, et al, 1995. "Unitary versus Collective Models of the Household: Is It Time to Shift the Burden of Proof?," World Bank Research Observer, World Bank Group, vol. 10(1), pages 1-19, February.
- Harriss, John, 2002. "The Case for Cross-Disciplinary Approaches in International Development," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 487-496, March.
- White, Howard, 2002. "Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches in Poverty Analysis," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 511-522, March.
- Jackson, Cecile, 2002. "Disciplining Gender?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 497-509, March.
- Alderman, H. & Chiappori, P.A. & Haddad, L., 1994.
"Unitary versus Collective Models of the Household: Time to Shift the Burden of Proof?,"
DELTA Working Papers
94-17, DELTA (Ecole normale supérieure).
- Chiappori, Pierre-Andre & Haddad, Lawrence & Hoddinott, John & Kanbur, Ravi, 1993. "Unitary versus collective models of the household : time to shift theburden of proof?," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1217, The World Bank.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:wdevel:v:30:y:2002:i:3:p:477-486. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Shamier, Wendy)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.