Staff Paper Series
FOOD AND RESOURCE ECONOMICS DEPARTMENT
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32611
ETHICS AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT:
A MEETING OF PHILOSOPHY,. ECONOMICS, AND ANTHROPOLOGY
James R. Simpson
Staff Paper 80 April 1978
Staff Papers are circulated without formal review by the Food and Resource Economics
Department. Content is the sole responsibility of the author.
Food and Resource Economics Department
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32611
ETHICS AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT:
A MEETING OF PHILOSOPHY, ECONOMICS, AND ANTHROPOLOGY James R. Simpson*
"A good economist certainly needs both the proverbial 'broadening' effect of actual travel and a wide range of reading in history and all
branches of literature; and knowledge of scientific anthropology will be useful in much the same way." (Frank Knight, "Anthropology and Economics," The Journal of Political Economy, 1941).
The "energy crisis," a drastic cut in food reserves a few years ago, the accelerated depletion of many scarce resources, and rapid
population growth concomitant with a generally accepted dictum that the Lesser Developed Countries (LDC's) should attain substantially higher per capita GNP levels point to even more serious questions in the decade ahead about distribution of income and the cost-benefit and
ethical relationships in the use of scarce resources. Parallel with the surfacing of these development issues has been a natural concern by regional planners about the effects their efforts have on regions and communities within a country. This has brought about a renewed interest in explaining "What is development?" A related question is how does "progress" or "modernization'"'2- (or at least change) affect the population of the region or nation-state under study, and what are the constituent parts of "the good life."' In summary, there is a growing interest in ethical aspects as they relate to goals and means in regional development.
Presented as part of a symposium "Cultural Problems and Ethical Issues in Regional Development: An Economist's Point of View," at the 1978 Annual Meeting of the Society for Applied Anthropology in Merida, Yucatan, Mexico, April ,7, 1978.
* Associate Professor, Food and Resource Economics Department, University
When one recognizes that regional development involves political
and social considerations as well as strict economic relationships, and as there is more demand for development planning rather than society relying on uncontrolled market forces, the planner and his advisors such as anthropologists and economists will find it desirable to have a clearer understanding of the ethical implications involved in their work and the extent to which ethical oriented problems are important. This points to having a knowledge of the issues considered by moral philosophers, and a cognizance of how moral philosophy can be incorporated in the activities of anthropologists and economists vis-a-vis regional development planning. Because there is a need for collaboration between economists and anthropologists, and since there is a question, at least by economists, on the ethical factors relating to their involvement and impinging on their work an attempt is made in this paper to demonstrate economists and anthropologists should give attention to the-subject of ethics when collaborating on regional development projects, how moral philosophy can be utilized, and areas of collaboration by the two disciplines, especially where ethical principles are of importance. First, let us discuss ways in which economists and anthropologists can collaborate and ethical issues which must be taken into account for effective collaboration to'take place.
Collaboration by Economists and Anthropologists
Nearly 40 years have passed since Frank Knight wrote his critique entitled "Anthropology and Economics" of Melville J. Herskovits' pioneering effort Economic Anthropoloy.4 Despite Knight's plea for an
understanding of anthropology by ecqnomists, there have been very few economists who have called upon anthropologists for tools which can be utilized in their analyses.-'/ Meanwhile, the fledgling subdiscipline' of economic anthropology is in the maturation process through the efforts of anthropologists who have continued to reach over into economics for analytical tools and theoretical concepts fl'
As an integral part of economic anthropology's evolutionary process there has been a progression by many of its adherents from the traditional study of peasant and primitive economies into development problems at the national, regional and community levels. In effect, if I am correct, anthropologists in the subdiscipline have defined an expanded role aimed at contemporary world problems rather than restricting themselves to theoretical aspects such as whether primitive man or peasants are rational economizing people of the type described by classical or neoclassical economists. The expanded role seems to have brought about an introspection of the discipline as anthropologists become involved in the change process rather than-simply describing a certain group of people. As we attempt to determine the role defined by the two disciplines, their perception of means and ends, and avenues for collaboration, it is useful to summarize the prevailing methodologies as they relate to a normative involvement.
The anthropologist who follows the functionalist approach, as I understand the matter, is a researcher basically trained to study the workings, the functioning if you will, of a cultural situation and, upon completion of his findings, report them. His or her role has traditionally been one of observation with ethical concerns primarily restricted
to professional practicalities.Z With the advent of the concept called "cultural change" the applied anthropologist has, however, been forced to rethink what his role should be as a promoter of change. Out of the quest for an answer has come a group, primarily those leaning toward a marxist ideology, who feel that in addition to presenting their research findings they should also adopt a position and lobby for certain changes./ What this means is that the action oriented social anthropologist should take a guiding role by expounding a normative "ought" rather than simply evaluating a situation and setting forth alternatives alongwith attendant pros and cons couched in terms of social costsand returns.
In economic anthropology there has been a related issue called the formalist-substantivist debate-: which, while interesting from the point of determining the most applicable method of economic analysis in non-Western societies, will be bypassed here as neither the formalists such as Le Clair 10/ who follow the theory of the firm, nor the substantivists such as Polanyil- who begin from an institutional point, have demonstrated that their position is the most appropriate. In fact, it has been asserted that the best method depends on the society being studied. I would agree with this position but would add that the method depends to a greater extent on the problem being worked on with the cultural setting being secondary. The point is that the economist is problem oriented while it appears that the social anthropologist is more study or descriptive oriented. Perhaps I am misinformed, but it seems that, to the economist, the study is a tool while to the anthropologist, in general, the study is an end in itself.
As previously mentioned there haf been a recent ascendency of marxist thought in economic anthropology, especially by the so called "French School."12/ The essence of their argument is that interactions within nonindustralized economic systems are not determined by the relationship of exchange as set forth by both classical and neoclassical theoreticians, even though they may seem to be. Rather, the true source is the relations of production. The neo-marxist thought falls right back on the labor theory of value.as the source of value rather than accepting demand as the source of value. It should be observed that non-marxist economists discarded the labor theory of value in the 1870's during the so called "marginal revolution" in economic thought.13/ Although the economic anthropologists who follow the marxist structuralist tradition are to be commended for their concern about the production-marketing dichotomy, to a non-marxist economist they often seem gloriously confused. Consider, for example, the statement of a leading Marxist, Maurice Godelier, who states "The maximizing of production is only one aspect of the overall strategy of.maximizing social satisfactions which is imposed upon individuals and groups within this society. Here then, is an example of the confusion for the problem is not maximizing production, but rather one of optimizing it to meet the needs and desires of consumers. The non-marxist argues that production is simply an instrument to meet final, higher goals. In any event, considering that the battle between the formalist and substantivists has raged for thirty five years with both groups talking right past each other (because they didn't take the time to discuss the principles of the debate) it appears that the structural-functionalist controversy may end up in much the same way except that ideologies--ones based on ethical
issues--are involved. This magnificoptly complicates the issue taking it beyond a simple quest for a model to handle an empirical problem.
A partial summing up indicates that a necessary condition for
economists and anthropologists to effectively collaborate is an agreement--at least on the personal level--about role limitations, the proper tools for the problem, where and how value is set and how one researcher can compliment the other. Because the question of how a professional views his role in a regional development setting is so important to the direction projects can take, and because it is related to the controversy as well as having morally related overtones, some attention will now be given to the economist's view about what the economist's role should be.l
One major source of concern about the relation between ethics and economics revolves around whether economists should make statements relating to moral choice. The past three decades in particular have witnessed pressure on economists to act only as numbers manipulators with their policy role limited to quantitatively evaluating the difference between normative alternatives.l6- To a certain extent, the computer has replaced the person as the focal point since social scientists have become increasingly enamored with the quantitative and the scientific. In all fairness, the point is not that economists refuse to work on policy matters but rather that they avoid setting goals or philosophically oriented standards.lMost economists feel that their first task is to.,clearly determine the economic effects that follow from particular courses of action or events and then, if required, to weigh different economic effects against
each other and attempt to find a balqnce.--8 In carrying out their analyses economists make an attempt to quantify as many of the costs and benefits as possible and then list the intangibles recognizing that, if a monetary value could be placed on the intangibles, that it might tip the balance on the total costs and returns.I- The economist says "so you want to carry out a project in a region, well, I can give you insights into the cost, repayment of loans and economic feasibility under alternative approaches." Where he has often fallen down is in failing to adequately evaluate the importance which should be given to the intangibles, and it is this aspect which is one useful meeting ground for collaboration by economists and anthropologists.
At the international level a contemporary writer, Howard Ellis,
believes that while cultural forces are fundamental factors in'development, that economists have only given them cursory treatment, because they are difficult to measure quantitatively and are constantly changing. Consequently, a definitive analysis or "a" theory incorporating culture'change is difficult if not impossible to mold. Nevertheless, Ellis observes that "just as there is a place for cultural anthropology, there is an important role to be played by cultural economics.'"- In all events, the economist holding a liberal economic philosophy feels that clients should only be'presented with facts, whereupon the client makes the decision rather than depending on recommendations regarding alternatives as well as actions.
Toward One Definition qf being "Developed"
Several decades ago a top drawer economist with a strong social
science background, Joseph Schumpeter, argued that "analytic effort is of necessity preceeded by a preanalytic cognitive act that supplies the raw material for analytic effort.... This preanalytic cognitive act will be called vision.'- / Now, both economists and anthropologists, if they are to collaborate on regional development efforts, need to have a vision of what is meant by being "developed." This is particularly true since the area of greatest joint effort can come about by working on constraints and intangibles, both of which are slippery areas to begin with.
raking into account the manner in which the economist perceives his role in the change process, I would like to define being "developed" as a multifaceted phenomenon that is relative to each person and nation. There is no set level at which a country or region is "developed" although some indicators such as GNP per capita are useful measures. Nevertheless, a country, region, community, or individual can be considered to be developed when there is an aura of freedom, "sufficient" income, and there are adequate opportunities to achieve aspirations, security and esteem.
It is fully recognized that this rather nebulous definition will leave many of the audience cold as they expect a neat classification which lends itself to being measured. The point which the definition brings out, however, is that development is a personal experience and that even though there are differences in incomes, that the term "developed" is based on factors other than income such as the reduction of class differences, i.e., the promotion of equality and. harmonious living.
At first blush it seems that thQ definition is so wide that it is of little use from a functional policy standpoint. Closer examination reveals that a whole political ideology with attendant programs and thrusts, for example, is'based on a conception of whether the development goal is one of equality of opportunity (essentially what is being argued for in the definition) or equality (which means an effort to make a society as homogeneous as possible, at least in economic and material ways). In brief, the definition, or alternative definitions of its kind, are useful for setting overall philosophies or "visions" about the direction programs should take.
For those who still demand a classification on being "developed" a two criteria system of the following sort might be useful. One criterion could be economic, with a ranking according to per capita income and conviences such as the number of telephones. The other gauge could be ethical in nature with the criteria being those factors which could be used to evaluate the variable given in the definition of development such as levels of freedom, esteem and adequate opportunities to achieve aspirations. The key is that being developed is individual and everchanging so that there is no finish line in the race to develop, to progress or to become modern. The "ends" for development, then, become those of achieving short term goals with a minimum of pain and effort, goals which. blend into a means-ends continuum. Since in our definition modernism is viewed as being relative then proper policy and sound goals dictate the ordering of priorities according to the explicit recognition that some groups will seize opportunities while others will let them slide by.
This paper will bypass the controversy on what constitutes a region and simply define it as an identifiable geographical area, an administrative unit or a combination of administrative units. Regional development will be considered to be a wedding of the previous definition of development along with a secular growth in regional output or real income. Recognizing that regional development can be accelerated by influences exogenous to the normal functioning of the private economy, a regional development Program is defined as a public undertaking, most likely a government venture, one of whose primary objectives is to
influence the underlying factors affecting regional output.-J~ As economists are wont to point out, the decision of where to locate a new project is just as important as the decision to invest in it. Unfortunately, these wonderful manipulators of economic data have not given as much attention to how programs can be effected as the topic deserves. In effect, it is my argument that, as members of a team on development, economists need to understand the vagaries of human problems on regional projects falling under their scrutiny. In effect, the economist who is asked to participate in development projects needs help from anthropologists.
Another summing up is useful before proceeding. I have argued that there is need for the economist and anthropologist to interact in regional development projects because the purpose of a development program i -s to bring about change in the lives of individuals, the modernization of communities and changes in whole cultures. The problem, then, involves humans, rather than just investments and movements of capital. Viewed in this light the economist on a regional project needs to collaborate with
anthropologists to determine factors Vhich might prevent the project from working as designed, in other words in identifying constraints. The economist also needs help in determining the importance which must be given to the various intangibles.
Once again, we return to a point made earlier that if anthropologist and economists are to effectively collaborate they must have a similar vision about their role in the change agent process. It can be hypothesized that there will be little difficulty on methodological issues provided the anthropologist holds a functionalist philosophy as this is basically the viewpoint of the economist. The problem comes when the identified role includes setting goals and policies about regional development and promoting them rather than simply evaluating them and discussing the tradeoffs involved.
By now, it is apparent that I support, and in all likelihood so do nearly all economists except the so called "radical economists," the position taken by the anthropologist George Castile that it is no part of the business of scientists to make ethical judgments based on some ethnocentric and subjective morality.-3/ In large part, this is because we are scientists aiming at truth seeking. Thus, we recognize that the "truth" about what is "best" for a society depends on that society at a
given point in time. We can evaluate these values, quantify the alternatives to the extent possible and discuss the implications of tradeoffs, but the ethical choices lie entirely in the hands of the enclaved population. At this point we need the assistances of philosophers trained in moral philosophy as it is their business to evaluate ethical factors relating to values, i.e. they go beyond the work of anthropologists.
What it all boils down to, then, is tat for anthropologists and economists to effectively work together there has to be a vision of their role and how they view "development" and being "developed."
At this point it is useful to provide an example of how anthropologists, philosophers and agricultural economists might collaborate on a regional development project. Let's suppose that a relatively arid area in an LDC is being considered for an irrigation project with a dam and water distribution infrastructure. The first question is: Should the project be carried out? Apart from political motives, is this project desirable ethically as well as economically. A useful point of departure would be'naming a commission to provide information on the pros and cons, sort of a "pre-feasibility" study. It would seem that our two disciplines plus moral philosophy would be logical choices for three of the committee slots.
The first question raised would be: Is the project desirable in the sense of leading to a "better" life? This would be evaluated from the national as well as the regional level points of view. The philosopher could help sort the problem into the three parts which he normally considers to make up the branch of philosophy known as ethics. The questions are: The good, the duty and value.
It is useful to recall that philosophy can be considered as a strenuous effort to seek the truth in areas where science is inaccessible. What is important for our problem is that it is a search for truth through logical reasoning rather than factual observation. In effect it complimeits anthropology rather nicely Ethics or moral philosophy as it is also termed, an arm of philosophy, critically examines, clarifies and
reframes the basic concepts and pres4ppositions of morality. The first task for the philosopher in our example would be in outlining problems about value such as identifying the community values and determining whether they are a matter of opinion, interest, attitude, custom or law. It may be, for example, that the people in the region are strongly anti-economic development, in effect, traditional in their beliefs while the country as a whole is "progressive." After arriving at agreements on appropriate values and determining why they hold them, the philosopher would assist in discussing regional attitudes within the context of duty or moral debate vis-a-vis national values. At this juncture the economist and anthropologist are called upon to assist in conceptualizing attitudes in terms of constraints and intangibles which would be incorporated in the project analysis. If, for example, there are strong baises against the project the economist can help by consulting with technicians in identifying alternative projects which might have similar impacts but which more fully fulfill goals that are deemed desirable at both the regional and national level. The major point is that the economist is taught to think in terms of alternative choice making situations although he or she rarely thinks about them in an ethical context! It should be noted that while all three of our erstwhile consultants have been involved in a policy issue, they have not acted as decision makers or in a normative fashion.
Let's assume that a regional development project has been selected. The next step is the project analysis. At this juncture the economist and the anthropologist can really collaborate. Although help can be gained in determining constraints to project implementation, and certainly,
there is room for defining intangibles and possibly quantifying some of them, I would suggest that the major area of concentration for the anthropologist could be in assisting in identifying the incremental (additional) benefits from the project. Suppose,,for example, that a major benefit is expected to be the shifting over from dryland corn production to citrus. A typical question is: What percent of the farmers and what percent of the land area will be changed over to citrus? In other words, what will the adoption rate and time schedule be? Furthermore, suppose that 30 percent are projected to remain corn producers. What percent will adopt irrigation? What percent are late adopters? The key here is making reliable and knowledgable estimates of benefits, and this requires a good understanding of the "client." Ostensibly, the example is a study in farm management--in reality it is a study in people.
The Mexican Indian Development Program
Because this conference is being held in Mexico, it seems appropriate that one concrete example be taken from this country. The one which I would like to discuss is an approach adopted by the National Indian Institute (Instituto Nacional Indigenista) (INI) with respect to their indigenous development program. This program, although national in scope, can also be considered a regional effort albeit one that is aimed at numerous regions throughout the country. Their regional approach is, in fact, clearly delineated in item number five of the thirteen points which constitute the core of their affirmative action program. This item
specifically states that the program must be regional in nature given the impossibility of developing a community in isolation.2- /
In contradistinction to the United States Indian policy which has vacilated with bewildering rapidity from pushing Indians into the mainstream of U.S. economic life to encouraging Indians to remain isolated on their reservations in cultural distinctness, I.N.I. has long recognized the value of a policy which pulls or steers regional development by extending opportunities to the target groups. As a part of the sixth point they state "we adopt the relativist concept of culture, as well as a clear democratic position, when we consider that the utilization of compulsory process should be energetically rejected, by whomever they may be, to make the indigenous community adopt new forms of life, new cultural patrons."-' By adopting the position that the change agent's role, and certainly the economist and anthropologist working on regional development projects walk arm in arm in this area, is to first research the aspirations of the clients and their possibilities for adoption of what can be offered, and then assist in offering--not forcing, but offering--the means for regional development, I.N.I. has set forth guidelines for regional development which I, as an economist, find ethically acceptable and stimulating. Hopefully these principles are carried out in practice.
In parting, it is useful to reconsider the title of this paper which is "Ethics and Regional Development: A Meeting of Philosophy, Economics, and Anthropology." Within this context, if the goal is taken to be improving peoples lifestyles, general contentment with their surroundings
and the feeling that they can self-aqtualize, it would seem that the ethical goal of regional development, the Vision if you will, should be on helping or steering, but not pushing. This is what I.N.I. set out to do when they developed the concept of the indigenous coordinating centers (los centros coordinadores indigenistas).
Throughout this paper I have displayed an optimistic view about the possibility of economists working with anthropologists. Let me end on a note of caution which will also serve to tie the beginning section on methodologies together. It must be clearly understood that the economists whole training and orientation is in evaluating alternative situations with the expectation that the highest benefit cost ratio alternative, subject to political, cultural and other constraints will be adopted. I would speculate that the anthropologist, on the other hand, does not think in terms of alternatives. He is trained to describe a given situation and draw conclusions about it. Given this dichotomy, my feeling is that someone will have to give way if there is to be effective dialogue and collaboration. If the view is adopted that there are alternatives to reaching a "better" or higher quality of life, and that they are not always economically determined, then the regional planning example in which the ethitician is brought in is useful. If, however, there is a strong belief that regional development is "determined" (in the marxist sense) and not set according to people desires and values, and that alternatives should not be explored, then the gap is wide and the economists basic orientation is violated. This is a problem which needs to be considered.
As population continues to grow, and as it becomes increasingly apparent that there will be insufficient resources for many people in LDC's
to meet their personal and societal pals and aspirations, in effect to develop in the fullest sense of the word, there will be increasing demands on anthropologists, economists and philosophers to assist planners in determining right courses of action for regional development. The planner will be requesting help on determining means and ends and he will expect answers. If our disciplines are to remain relevant we will have to provide those answers. The'difficulty will lie in our restricting our roles to advisors rather than also attempting to set goals.
11see for example Douglas V. Steere, "Development: For What?", in Development: For What?, ed., John H. Hollowell (Durham, North Carolina: Duke Univ. Press, 1964).
./In addition to the wonderful selection of literature on the subject by anthropologists such as Edward H. Spicer (ed) Human Problems in Technological Change (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1952), Manning Nash "Some Social and Cultural Aspects of Economic Development," Economic Development and Culture Change 7 No. 2, (January, 1959): 142, and Talcott Parsons, Societies: Evolutionary and Comparative Perspectives (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1966), there have been a number of good articles and books by economists and other researchers. See for example, Reinhard 13endix, "What is Modernization?", in Developing Nations Quest for a Model, ed. Willard A. Beling and George 0. Tutten (New York: Von Nostrand Reinhold Co., 1970).
*JFor an interesting history of how man has viewed progress see Warren W. Wagner, Good Tidings: The Belief in Progress from Darwin to Marcuse (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1972).
!/Frank H. Knight, "Anthropology and Economics" The Journal of Political EconomwVol, XLIX No. 2, April, 1941, and reprinted in Melville J. Herskovits, Economic Anthropology: The Economic Life of Primitive Peoples, (New York: W.W. Norton and Co., Inc., 1965). The book was first published in 1940 as The Economic Life of Primitive Peoples.
5/There are a few exceptions such as George Dalton. For more detail see James R. Simpson, "Uses of Cultural Anthropology in Economic Analysis: A Papago Indian Case, Human Organization Vol. 29, No. 3, (Fall, 1970), pp. 162-168. Also, see Leonard Joy, "One Economist's View of the Relationship Between Economics and Anthropology," in Raymond Firth, (ed) Themes in Economic Anthropology, (New York: Tavistock Publications, 1967), pp. 29-46.
-6/For example, see Talal Asad, "The Concept of Rationality in Economic Anthropology," Economy and Society, (1974) 3(2): 211-218; Schneider, (eds) Economic Anthropology (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1968).
/ Society for Applied Anthropology, "Code of Ethics," Human Organization 10, No. 2, (Summer, 1951), and "Professional Ethics: Statements and Procedures of the American Anthropological Association," (September, 1973).
/A good review is Maurice Godelier, "Anthropology and Economics," in Marxist Perspectives in Anthropology kCambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977) as well as the Spanish language book he edited Anthropologia y Economia (Barcelona, Spain: Editorial Anagrama, 1974).
9JSee David Kaplan, "The Formal Substantive Controversy in Economic Anthropology: Reflections on its wider Implication," Southwestern Journal of Anthropology (1968) 24(3): 288-251.
10/Le Clair, Edward and Harold Schneider, Economic Anthropology:
Readings in Theory and Analysis (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1967).
1l/Dalton, George, Primitive, Arcpaic and Modern Economics: Essays of Karl Polanyi (New York: Doubleday Inc., 1968).
12/See for example, Claude Meillassoux, L'Anthropologie 6 Conomique des Gouro de CotO d'Ivoire (Mouton, 1964): Objet et m6thodes de l'Anthropologie 6 conomique by Maurice Godelier (1965); and Stone Age Economics by Marshall Sahlins (Aldine, 1972).
--For a good summary of the issues see Henry W. Spiegel, The
Growth of Economic Thought, (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersy: PrenticeHall, Inc., 1971). The entire Fall, 1972 issue of History of Political Economy Vol. 4, No. 2, is devoted to this subject.
14/Maurice Godelier, Rationality and Irrationality in Economics, (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1972).
15-/For more detail see Jorgensen, J.G. "On Ethics and Anthropology," Current Anthropology 12 (1971), Pp. 321-34.
L6/See for example W. Beckerman, "The Economist as Modern Mizsionary," The Economic Journal 66 (March 1966): P. 115, Walter A. Weisskopf, '"conomics and Meaninglessness," Crosscurrents 12, No. 4, (Winter, 1973): 353.
17/For more discussion see John D. Black, "Should Economists Make Value Judgments?," Quarterly Journal of Economics 67, (1953): 286-297.
1-/See Glen Johnson, "Economics, Ethics, Food and Energy," presented as the Professor James C. Synder Memorial Lecture at Purdue University, March, 1976.
A fine review of the methodology followed by agricultural economists
is presented in "An Essay on the Idea and Logic of Agricultural Economics," an unpublished Ph.D. dissertation by Yang Boo Choe, University of Missouri-Columbia, August, 1977.
1-/A good discussion about the wqy in which intangibles are handled is given by J. Price Gittinger in Economic Analysis of Agricultural Projects (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press), 1972.
2 0/Howard S. Ellis, "How Culture Shapes Economic Growth," Arizona Review 20 (January, 1971): 9.
2-1Joseph A. Schumpeter, History of Economic Analysis, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1954), p. 41.
jFor more detail by a specialist who defines regional development in strictly economic terms, see John V. Krotilla, "Criteria for Evaluating Regional Development Programs," The American Economic Review, Vol. 45 (May, 1955). This paper is reprinted in the book by John Friedman and William Alonso, (ed) Regional Development and Planning: A Reader (Cambridge, Mass.: The M.I.T. Press), 1964.
-3/Castille, George P., "An Unethical Ethic: Self-Determination and the Anthropological Conscience," Human Organization, Vol. 34, No.
1 (Spring, 1975), pp. 35-40.
-/Instituto Nacional Indigenista (I.N.I.), Los Centros Coordinadares Indigenistas, Mexico City, Mexico, 1962.
2 5/Spicer, E.H., A Short History of the Indians of the United States (New York: Von Nostrand, 1969); and Brophy, William A., and Sophie D.
Aberle, et. al, The Indians, America's Unfinished Business (Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1966).
2W6Ibid, I.N.I., p. 9. This is an unofficial translation of the text, which is in Spanish.