Complexity , Innovation , and Development
and projects . Singer ’ s life history to a large extent reflects the debates surrounding Schumpeter ’ s work and that of his contemporaries such as John Maynard Keynes . 55
It is now acknowledged that Singer was the sole originator of the famous Prebisch-Singer thesis on worsening trade terms between industrialized and developing countries . 56 Singer ’ s 22 years in the United Nations ( UN ) were devoted to a prodigious career where he contributed immensely to the articulation of new concepts and the creation of international development institutions and programs in fields covering international trade , children , development financing , food aid , science and technology , and development research . 57
An area that stands out in his work at the UN is his resounding dismissal of the relevance of Schumpeter ’ s ideas to development . He expresses deeply pessimistic views in “ Obstacles to Economic Development .” 58 From the outset , he argued that Schumpeter ’ s “ theory is a good basis for a survey of the general obstacles to economic development , not because it applies to underdeveloped countries but because it fails to apply .” 59
The basis for his analysis is his acceptance of Wallich ’ s three arguments against Schumpeter : the absence of entrepreneurs in those countries and hence the need for government intervention ; the lack of capacity to generate new technologies ; and the local focus for consumption rather than production . Singer accepted its premises as being consistent with “ what can be observed in underdeveloped countries .” 60
Singer argues that the existence of entrepreneurs is not a cause of development but its consequence :
“ From this point of view the Schumpeter system is not really a theory of economic development , in the sense of a theory of how such development starts . Rather , it is a theory of how economic development continues and proceeds , once it has reached a certain stage characterized by the creation of innovating private entrepreneurs , and by the creation of the kind of society in which they can operate .” 61
Singer failed to acknowledge the inspirational model that Schumpeter was using , which was essentially the transformation of the economic system from within . The shift from one economic level to the next was independent of the level at which society was starting off provided there is generation of new combinations , especially in relation to agricultural economies .
Singer , like Wallich , made a strong case for the role of the public sector . He acknowledged , however , the low level of administrative capacity in less-developed
55
There is a separate body of literature that looks at the theoretical and personal differences between Schumpeter and Keynes which will not be reviewed in this paper . Those interested in data on how intellectual history is judging the two might want to look at A . M . Diamond , Jr ., “ Schumpeter vs . Keynes : ‘ In the Long Run Not All of Us Are Dead ,’” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 31 ( 4 ) ( 2009 ): 531 – 541 . An instructive comparison of the two economists is A . Smithies , “ Schumpeter and Keynes ,” Review of Economic Statistics 33
( 2 ) ( 1951 ): 163 – 169 .
56
J . Toye and R . Toye , “ The Origins and Interpretation of the Prebisch-Singer Thesis ,” History of Political Economy 35 ( 3 ) ( 2003 ): 437 – 467 .
57
Toye , “ Hans Singer and International Development ,” 915 – 923 .
58
H . Singer , “ Obstacles to Economic Development ,” Social Research 19 ( 4 ) ( 1953 ): 19 – 31 .
59
Ibid . 19 .
60
Ibid ., 19 .
61
Ibid ., 23 .
13