ABSTRACT
Until the end of World War II, the term ‘development’ was used mainly to refer to biological species, real estate and moves in chess. Only thereafter did it become applied to people, countries, sectors and regions. Since then, we have been flooded by development theories whose labels, as I.Illich (1980) observed, are now ‘keepsakes for collectors’. We all remember, for example, such catchphrases as import and export substitution, catching-up modernization, dualism, dependency, basic needs, autochthonous industrialization, self-help, etc. Development theorists deposited mountains of reports filled with wishful thinking and simplistic caricatures of opposing approaches. But few could argue today that the results in practice (‘out-there’) were commensurate with the theorists’ efforts and the money spent.
