ABSTRACT
Recent work by Lipton, Stewart, Warren and others has, from differing standpoints, called into question much of the conventional wisdom of the dependency school (shared by my book Industry and Underdevelopment) about the relationship between development and industrialisation. Four of these arguments- that industrialisation is necessary to meet human needs, that underdeveloped countries are in general not succeeding in industrialising, that capital-intensive technology is desirable and that industrialisation requires more autarky - are reexamined. They are all found to be in need of considerable modification; but the genera/lines of the proferred alternatives to them are for the most part not accepted either. Part of the problem is diagnosed as insufficient concern for the human consequences of 'actually existing industrialisations' and too nationalistic a conception of socialism.
