Industry and Underdevelopment Re‐examined
重新审视了关于发展与工业化关系的四个传统论点，发现它们都需要大幅修正，同时也不完全接受替代观点，并指出问题在于对实际工业化的人类后果关注不足以及社会主义概念过于民族主义。
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 re‐examined. They are all found to be in need of considerable modification; but the general 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.