7.5 以下是发展经济学作业的第二、第三部分，相对有意思些：

The neo-Marxist paradigm

Background:
Structuralism was so popular around 1960, and in theoretical work, governed the dominance. However, not until the mid-1960 had the dissatisfaction with it boomed. Though the import substitution had a period which in many countries had seen the high growth of GDP, others had not indeed improved, and even had worsen. Some of the critics leaded to even more radical conclusion, while other turned into traditional. The emergence of the neo-Marxist can be is the outcome of the former radical ones.

Representative:
Paul Baran was to some extend the leading economists of the time. In the 1950s, exploring in depth the revalence of Marxist principles to the analysis of the contemporary problem of underdevelopment, he found that Marxist theory could be an fruit source to study the issue of underdevelopment. Meanwhile, Baran also found that, because of lack of sufficient information, Marx failed to develop a comprehensive the nature of underdevelopment and had been over-optimistic. As a result, he introduced the “actual economic surplus” on the base of the origin al meaning of the surplus for the new condition.
In 1960’s Andre Gunder Frank, who was thinking of the development problems should be the largely domestic problems, however converted to Baran’s perspective after acknowledging the latter’s work and then help the analysis of underdevelopment gain a wide following. He later found underdevelopment is a process
Both of them takes the existing pattern of class control over the disposition of the surplus as the immediate cause of the underdevelopment.

Key points:
1. Distinction between underdeveloped an undeveloped:
The prospects for the development of the capitalist mode of production in any one country are largely determined by its position, which is historically determined, in the international economy.
The developed counties are developed from the stage of undeveloped. However, present-day underdeveloped countries cannot expect to pass through the same phases of economies because the international conditions are different from that time. The opportunities the Core countries once have are not open to contemporary underdeveloped economics.
2. Distribution Economic Surplus
Foreign capitalist investment in the Periphery has locked these countries into the production of primary products for export bases on cheap labor drawn from the traditional sector. In these countries production is characterized by export of primary products and by the existence of a small, protected, monopolistic modern industrial sector dominated by foreign capital and using imported technology, remaining the mass of the population impoverished. Both the neo-Marist and structuralist share the above acknowledge.
Meanwhile, surplus, the core word of the Marx’s theories, is here extended in its implication, as they think is redistributed in the scale of world in the post-war era. In fact, in the neo-Maoist paradigm the existing pattern of class control over the disposition of the surplus is the immediate cause. This makes it different from the structuralist paradigm’s idea which takes the existing economic structures.
The industrially advanced countries, with their priority in development, are then, at various stages of their development, able to make use of the underdeveloped economies as sources of cheap raw material, markets for their goods, and outlets for surplus capital.
3. Deterioration of Trade Conditions
Trade between advanced capitalist economies ad underdeveloped economies is characterized by unequal exchange, i.e. the difference in returns to labor embodied in the products traded exceeds the difference in labor productivity. In this way too surplus is extracted from the periphery to the core.
The whole Third World, as a result is to some extend exploited by the Core.
3. Socialist Revolution
The neo-Marxists think only following a socialist revolution can these economies embark on a path of full development, through productive and equitable use of the surplus, which can help to get rid of the unfair distribution of economic surplus.

The reviving neo-classical Paradigm

Background:
As is mentioned in the background of the last paradigm, apart from the neo-Marxism, the critics towards structuralism also leaded to a traditional conclusion. The attempts to maximize the rate of modern sector capital were argued by some critics. So came the revival of the neo-classical paradigm.

Representative:
Theodore W．Schultz had pointed out that numerous evidences of increasing profit can be found in agriculture, and was the first in critique of the failure of structuralism on the standpoint of the neo-classicalism.
In late 1960’s and 1970’s Little, Scitovsky, Scott and McKinnon shared in their critiques of import-substituting industrialization that policy-makes should have paid greater attention to promoting a structure if pieces which gave producers a true indication of the relative opportunity cost of resources, rather than using a mixture of selective import controls.
Kahn and Knight later advocated that not only control of the money supply but removal of price distortions and the freeing of markets from public sector interventionism.

Key points:
1. Tradition from neo-classism
In the revival of neo-classism era, neo-classists take a continuing conviction in the mutual benefits to be obtained from free international trade, like they had done for decades. Unimpeded operation of the market will maximize efficiency and economic welfare as they believe economic inequality is an important source of incentive.
So do they emphasize the importance id agriculture which is dismissed by structuralists.
Prices are not as not only as the most variable, or policy instrument, among a number, but also and even the most important means by which economic information is conveyed and the dominant guide according to which resources are, and should be, allocated.
Also, they focus on relatively short-run allocative issues, micro economy policy and general proposal instead of aiming at a certain country with certain condition.
2. Neo-Institutionalism invited
Some of the neo-classists stick to minimizing the intervention role for government, although the exact range of interventions that regarded as acceptable varies.
On the other hand, many neo-classical welfare economists regard it as the task of governments to set development objectives. They find the neo-classis in revival have to be related to the institution, because the trade itself costs by the policy and law influencing, the traditional neo-classism is thus more or less inadequate, and so invited the neo-institution.

中文摘要：

二.
结构主义的发展经济学在1940-1960年的时间段里还是很流行的，各国家间的实施效果参差不齐，一部分理论学家们便走向的极左。也就是激进马克思主义。

1.它被称为激进"马克思主义"，是因为剩余价值学说是它的理论根基；但是从得出的结论上说，它和马克思的却正相反。

2.在六七十年代的世界体系中，整个第三世界的剩余价值被整个发达国家联合剥削。（现在更是如此，是个人都看得出来...）

3.“不发达”和“未发展”是两个概念，发达国家是从“未发达”阶段一步步发展的，市场和自由贸易加快了生产力提高；但一旦第一批发达国家建立，那么相应的市场体系就由他们把持，所谓的自由贸易就成了他们遏制其他原本“未发展”的国家的生产力快速提高的手段，这些“未发展”国家只能发展成了“不发达”国家。（窃以为，政治经济学本来就是一门学科，现在西方所要给发展中国家灌输的“民主”也是会遏制后者真正的民主进程；卡斯特罗能活那么久，估计真的是信仰在支撑他...）

4.根据2、3两点，不发达国家要真正的发展，必须在世界范围内建立社会主义体系。

三.
同样是对结构主义的批判，另一部分理论学家们走向了另一个极端，认为世界问题从“市场失灵”走向了“国家失灵”，于是出现了鼓吹贸易完全自由化的新自由主义。（但同时代的韩国、新加坡都是因为国家有力干预才能超级迅速发展，发展好了再多自由点....）

比较不那么激进是新古典主义的复兴，基本照办了新古典主义的理论基础，所以只能称为“复兴”，而成不了独立的“新新古典主义”理论。

1. 它针对结构主义的矫枉过正，强调农业依然是基础，贸易还是有很大作用的，区域要协调发展。

2. 晚期“新制度主义”的分支出现了，也就是说各国制度背景对各自发展会有的不同影响，这点开始受到了新古典主义学者们的关注。