Political economy and the rural‐urban divide, 1767–1981
- 1 April 1984
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Taylor & Francis in The Journal of Development Studies
- Vol. 20 (3) , 5-27
- https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388408421904
Abstract
Recent theories of urban and rural bias in Third World development are premised upon the notion of a relatively clear rural‐urban divide in terms of ecology, occupation and social and political organisation. As is the case with development economics generally, these theorists have drawn upon the societal assumptions and methodological postulates of classical political economy and of its Marxian offshoot. The concept of a clear rural‐urban divide is deeply embedded in classical political economy, in Marxian political economy, and in sociological theory. The relevance of this concept to the contemporary Third World is implicitly questioned.Keywords
This publication has 11 references indexed in Scilit:
- Idealism, Impatience, and Pessimism: Recent Studies of Democratization in Latin AmericaLatin American Research Review, 2005
- Economic development and rural industry in South Korea and TaiwanWorld Development, 1982
- Trend ReportCurrent Sociology, 1980
- Of neo‐populist pipe‐dreams: Daedalus in the Third World and the myth of urban biasThe Journal of Peasant Studies, 1979
- The Evolution of Economic IdeasPublished by Cambridge University Press (CUP) ,1978
- Agrarian transition and the Agrarian questionThe Journal of Peasant Studies, 1977
- Sectoral Clashes in Cuban Politics and DevelopmentPublished by Cambridge University Press (CUP) ,1971
- The Theory of Sectoral Clashes and Coalitions RevisitedLatin American Research Review, 1971
- The Relevance of the Theory of Sectoral Clashes to the Mexican EconomyPublished by Cambridge University Press (CUP) ,1969
- The Theory of Sectoral ClashesLatin American Research Review, 1969