ABSTRACT
Raul Prebisch, prime mover among the economists loosely designated as the "structuralists," asserts that from the fluid, often confused state of economic thinking in Latin America a distinct arid recognizable body of ideas is emerging. The criticisms by Prebisch and Hans W. Singer of the orthodox explanations of externally originated growth set off two lines of counterattack—one empirical, the other theoretical—that largely missed the main issue. Structuralism, like institutionalism, began with an attack on deficiencies in neoclassical economic doctrine or on policies derived from that doctrine. The structuralists seem to have become aware only recently of the potential significance of technological change in the domestic development process, and this oversight may reflect a cultural hiatus in their own background. Areas for fruitful interchange may develop between structuralists and institutionalists based on the relative emphases they have given to their respective lines of investigation.
