The Debate on the Neo-Marxist Approach to Development

  • Nicos P. Mouzelis


An area where Marxist interpretations and tools of analysis seem gradually to be replacing the Parsonian functionalist paradigm is the sociology of development. In fact, Marxist methodology, in the wider sense of the word, has been so successful in this field of study that few serious students, whether Marxists or not, are very much concerned with the sort of functionalist/neo-evolutionist theories which were fashionable in the fifties and early sixties (for instance the work of Hagen, McLeland, Rostow, Lerner, Smelser, Eisenstadt).1 At present, interesting debates on such problems take place within Marxism as various theorists start taking a critical look at what has been called the neo-Marxist approach to development. Some of these critics pay attention mainly to the methodological shortcomings of neo-Marxist writers, others contest their substantive findings and conclusions. In this chapter I shall try to analyse and assess both types of critique (paying greater attention to the former)2 in the light of developments in Greece — a country whose economic trajectory portrays characteristics pertinent to the above debates.


Foreign Capital Social Formation Production Concept Capitalist Mode Capitalist Sector 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 6.
    L. Rhodes (ed.), Imperialism and underdevelopment: A reader, Monthly Review, New York 1970;Google Scholar
  2. R. J. Owen and R. B. Sutcliffe (eds), Studies in the theory of imperialism, Longman, London 1972.Google Scholar
  3. T. Szentes, The political economy of underdevelopment, Budapest 1971;Google Scholar
  4. 54.
    L. Lublinskaya, French absolutism: the crucial phase : 1620–1629, Cambridge University Press, 1968.Google Scholar
  5. 57.
    C. D. Scott, ‘Peasants, proleterianisation and the articulation of modes of production’, in Jrnl of Peasant Studies, Apr 1976, p. 323.Google Scholar
  6. 72.
    Cf. N. Poulantzas, ‘The Capitalist State: A reply to Miliband and Laclau’, New Left Review, Jan—Feb 1976.Google Scholar
  7. 97.
    E. Hobsbawm, Industry and empire, Penguin, London 1968;Google Scholar
  8. F. Braudel, La méditerranée et le monde méditerranéen a l’époque de Philippe II, Armand- Collin, Paris 1966;Google Scholar
  9. P. Anderson, Passages from antiquity to feudalism, and Lineages of the absolute State, New Left Books, London 1974; Lublinskaya, op. cit.Google Scholar
  10. 98.
    R. Bendix, Work and authority in industry, Wiley, New York 1956;Google Scholar
  11. B. Moore, op. cit., and E. Wallerstein, The modern world system: Capitalist agriculture in 16th-century Europe, New York 1974.Google Scholar
  12. 100.
    Cf. N. Mouzelis and M. Attalides, ‘Greece’, in M. Scotford Archer and S. Giner (eds), Contemporary Europe Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London 1973, part I.Google Scholar
  13. 102.
    Cf. P. Streeten, ‘The use and abuse of models of development planning’, in K. Martin and J. Knapp (eds), The teaching of development economics, Frank Cass, London 1966.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Nicos P. Mouzelis 1978

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicos P. Mouzelis

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations