ABSTRACT
This chapter suggests the political appeal of the counter-revolution and considers the logic of neo-classical economics as it informs a study of urban-rural relations. It examines the alleged connections between Keynesian economics and the promotion of urban-industrial growth in the developing world and outlines the critique of this 'orthodox' economics as it is developed by leading counter-revolutionaries. Attention is focused on the monoeconomics versus duoeconomics, on the importance of market price signals and on the cumulative impact of 'political distortions' in the constitution of urban-rural relations. The chapter presents a review of the neo-classical resurgence in development studies. A set of models makes its seal with economic policy on the 'urban-industrial' side of the equation. In arguing for a monoeconomic approach to the dilemmas of development, counter-revolutionaries strongly oppose statism and dirigisme, by which they understand a mistaken attempt by governments to run public industries and to regulate mechanisms of exchange and price formation.
