Currie's 'leading sector' strategy of growth: an appraisal
This paper offers a new interpretation of Lauchlin Currie's (1974) leading-sector strategy. The idea of a leading sector normally conjures up notions of a favoured or privileged treatment. This paper argues that Currie's leading-sector strategy is a misnomer in the sense that it does not call for any favoured treatment to the chosen sectors (such as urban housing or exports), but only removal of handicaps or institutional barriers. The paper also shows that Currie's strategy is different from Rosenstein-Rodan's (1943, 1961) big push, to which it is often compared. While Rosenstein-Rodan advocated centralised investment planning to maximise the size and to optimise the composition of investment, Currie's leading sectors were based on the Smith (1776)- Young (1928) pro-market framework. Finally, while the policy conclusions of Currie's approach and the current development thinking are similar in many ways, the underlying theoretical framework is very different.
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.
Volume (Year): 42 (2006)
Issue (Month): 3 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.tandfonline.com/FJDS20|
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/FJDS20|
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.:
- Buchanan, James M. & Yoon, Yong J., 2000. "A Smithean Perspective on Increasing Returns," Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(01), pages 43-48, March.
- Murphy, Kevin M & Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert W, 1989.
"Industrialization and the Big Push,"
Journal of Political Economy,
University of Chicago Press, vol. 97(5), pages 1003-26, October.
- Murphy, Kevin M. & Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert W., 1989. "Industrialization and the Big Push," Scholarly Articles 3606235, Harvard University Department of Economics.
- Kevin M. Murphy & Andrei Shleifer & Robert W. Vishny, 1988. "Industrialization and the Big Push," NBER Working Papers 2708, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- David Laidler & Roger Sandilands, 2000. "An Early Harvard Memorandum on anti-Depression Policies. Introductory Note," UWO Department of Economics Working Papers 20004, University of Western Ontario, Department of Economics.
- Ramesh Chandra, 2003. "Allyn Young revisited," Journal of Economic Studies, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 30(1), pages 46-65, January.
- Edwards, Sebastian, 1992.
"Trade orientation, distortions and growth in developing countries,"
Journal of Development Economics,
Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 31-57, July.
- Sebastian Edwards, 1991. "Trade Orientation, Distortions and Growth in Developing Countries," NBER Working Papers 3716, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Ramesh Chandra & Roger J. Sandilands, 2005. "Does modern endogenous growth theory adequately represent Allyn Young?," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 29(3), pages 463-473, May.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:jdevst:v:42:y:2006:i:3:p:490-508. 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: (Michael McNulty)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.