Development economics emerged as a heterodox discipline that traditional neoclassical economists opposed

Evidence

Traditional neoclassical economics—at the time still centered on equilibrium theory and full competition—seemed of little use in this field. While its shortcomings with regard to explaining labor market problems provided room for economists inspired by Keynes to inform employment strategies, urgently needed theoretical, conceptual, and empirical information needed to tackle pervasive problems of underdevelopment also emerged from a wide variety of heterodox development economists and seemed to provoke another “Keynesian revolution” of sorts (Hirschman 1981). … Traditional economists in fact objected to the formation of a specialized subdiscipline in principle and looked with dismay at the central roles allotted to “the state” and “planning” by many scholars in development economics. — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin, 1262

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Austrian economics originated as a reaction against state-led development — Mark Blyth, Austerity: The History of a Dangerous…, 382; Professional exclusion of heterodox economists makes neoclassical orthodoxy self-reinforcing — Philip Mirowski, Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste, 824; 1950s development economics featured real debates, not a single orthodoxy — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin: The Making…, 1335 (+1 more)