Glossing @samuelmoyn’s NOT ENOUGH, @BrankoMilan provides a nice table comparing and contrasting the Dependencia/NIEO/G77 vision of development versus the BasicNeeds/Washington Consensus glineq.blogspot.com/2019/07/from-w… 
@samuelmoyn @BrankoMilan Contrasting the NIEO versus the Basic Needs approach underscores how the NIEO in some ways represented very apex of the view that the object of #development should be the nation-state (rather than the individual).
@samuelmoyn @BrankoMilan Moreover, since the unit of developmental analysis for the NIEO-philic was the nation-state rather than the individual, it was often rather loose on the question of equality versus sufficiency, as Moyn's careful reading of Mahbub ul Haq shows.
@samuelmoyn @BrankoMilan Basic Needs broke radically with all that, devaluing the analytic centrality of the nation-state (tho @WorldBank still reports many developmental statistics in national terms) & taking the individual as the unit of poverty intervention, aiming at sufficiency & eschewing equality
@samuelmoyn @BrankoMilan @WorldBank Meanwhile, the Washington Consensus emerged in parallel and in alignment with Basic Needs at the Bank. The focus was on global-scale analysis, treating the NIEO-style state as a problem to be overcome in order to enable the global integration of trade, finance, and technology
