Question

describe briefly the dichotomies of development​

Answer 1

Explanation:

THE WORLD IS DIVIDED into two groups of people: those who divide the

world into two groups of people, and those who don't. As I evidently

belong to the former, I believe that the nature of various divisions can

throw light on what has come to be known as the rise and decline of

development economics.

Albert Hirschman, in his stimulating contribution to the international

symposium on Latin America at Bar Ilan University in 1980,' used two

criteria for classifying development theories: whether they asserted or

rejected the claim of mutual benefits in North-South relations; and

whether they asserted or rejected the claim of monoeconomics that there is

a single economic discipline, applicable to all countries and at all times.

Using this classification, he derived four types of theories. Orthodox

(neoclassical) economics asserts both claims. Neo-Marxist and depen-

dence theories reject both claims. Development economists tend to reject

the monoeconomics claim-the reason for their existence calls for a

distinct subject-but to assert the mutual benefit claim, whereas paleo-

Marxists assert the monoeconomics claim (except insofar as class deter-

mines consciousness) but reject the mutual benefit thesis.

One may want to quibble with Hirschman's classification. Development

economists constitute a large group, many of whom would reject the

mutual benefit claim without regarding themselves as neo-Marxists or

dependence theorists. Others would assert the unity of economics, while

considering it legitimate to carve out special areas for development eco-

nomics, to which particular branches or modifications of the single disci-

Paul P. Streeten is Professor of Economics and Director of the World Development

Institute at Boston University.

1. "The Rise and Decline of Development Economics," in Essays in Trespassing:

Economics to Politics and Beyond (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981).

337

Answer 2

Answer:

The Politics-administration dichotomy is a theory that constructs the boundaries of public administration and asserts the normative relationship between elected officials and administrators in a democratic society.[1] The phrase politics-administration dichotomy itself does not appear to have a known inventor, even after exhaustive research, the combination of words that make up the phrase was first found in public administration literature from the 1940s with no clear originator. Woodrow Wilson is credited with the politics-administration dichotomy via his theories on public administration in his 1887 essay, "The Study of Administration". Wilson came up with a theory that politics and administration are inherently different and should be approached as such. Wilson wrote in his essay in regards to public administration

Explanation: