Currie's ‘leading sector’ strategy of growth: an appraisal
重新解读了柯里的主导部门战略，认为其并非要求对选定部门给予特殊优待，而是消除障碍和制度壁垒，并指出该战略与罗森斯坦-罗丹的大推进理论不同，基于斯密-杨格的市场框架。
Abstract This paper offers a new interpretation of Lauchlin Currie's (1974 Currie, L. 1974. The ‘leading sector’ model of growth in developing countries. Journal of Economic Studies, 1: 1–16. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) leading-sector strategy. The idea of a leading sector normally conjures up notions of a favoured or privileged treatment. This paper argues that Currie's leading-sector strategy is a misnomer in the sense that it does not call for any favoured treatment to the chosen sectors (such as urban housing or exports), but only removal of handicaps or institutional barriers. The paper also shows that Currie's strategy is different from Rosenstein-Rodan's (1943 Rosenstein-Rodan, P. N. 1943. Problems of industrialisation of Eastern and South-Eastern Europe. Economic Journal, 53: 202–211. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar] 1961 Rosenstein-Rodan, P. N. 1961. “Notes on the theory of the ‘big push’”. In Economic Development of Latin America, Edited by: Ellis, H. S. and Wallich, H. C. 57–67. London: Macmillan. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]) big push, to which it is often compared. While Rosenstein-Rodan advocated centralised investment planning to maximise the size and to optimise the composition of investment, Currie's leading sectors were based on the Smith (1776 Smith, A. 1776. An Enquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Edited by: Cannan, E. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (1976) [Google Scholar])- Young (1928 Young, A. 1928. Increasing returns and economic progress. Economic Journal, 38: 527–542. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) pro-market framework. Finally, while the policy conclusions of Currie's approach and the current development thinking are similar in many ways, the underlying theoretical framework is very different.