Ascher (1996, 314) recognizes the early pluralism when he refers to Hirschman, who argued in 1981 that in the early (and formative) period of the field “neoclassical economics was competing with Marxism, neo-Marxism, and a distinctive development economics,” although neither Ascher nor Hirschman recognized the distinctiveness of the neoliberal participants in the debate. Meier and Seers (1984, 22) came somewhat closer in their effort to describe Western mainstream pluralism of the early days: “Some may choose to summarize the mainstream development economics of the 1950s as being structural, shaped by trade pessimism. . . . But there were crosscurrents, and the period was characterized by vigorous debate over some leading issues. Especially notable were controversies over balanced growth versus unbalanced growth, industrialization versus agriculture, import substitution versus export promotion, planning versus reliance on the market price system. The debates of some of these issues are still unresolved.”

Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin, loc. 1335