|
(The following is excerpted from material written in 1992.)
Many researchers regard Thailand’s
recent economic growth, as reflected by its
gross domestic product (GDP) growth rates,
Line as an example of the success of a modern
(5) technological development strategy based
on the market economics of industrialized
countries. Yet by focusing solely on aggre-
gate economic growth data as the measure
of Thailand’s development, these research-
(10) ers have overlooked the economic impact of
rural development projects that improve
people’s daily lives at the village level—
such as the cooperative raising of water
buffalo, improved sanitation, and the devel-
(15) opment of food crops both for consumption
and for sale at local markets; such projects
are not adequately reflected in the country’s
GDP. These researchers, influenced by
Robert Heilbroner’s now outdated develop-
(20) ment theory, tend to view nontechnological
development as an obstacle to progress.
Heilbroner’s theory has become doctrine in
some economics textbooks: for example,
Monte Palmer disparages nontechnological
(25) rural development projects as inhibiting
constructive change. Yet as Ann Kelleher’s
two recent case studies of the Thai villages
Non Muang and Dong Keng illustrate, the
nontechnological-versus-technological
(30) dichotomy can lead researchers not only to
overlook real advances achieved by rural
development projects but also mistakenly to
conclude that because such advances are
initiated by rural leaders and are based on
(35) traditional values and practices, they retard
“real” economic development.
[此贴子已经被作者于2005-11-30 21:49:54编辑过] | 
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2005-11-30 08:00:00
