International Journal of Culture and History ISSN 2332-5518 2014, Vol. 1, No. 2 32 A Review of Diana Hunt’s Economic Theories of Development: An Analysis of Competing Paradigms Ahmad Sadiddin Department of Economics and Management, University of Florence Via delle Pandette, 32. CAP. 50127 (FI), Florence, Italy Tel: 39-333-355-8295 (mob); 39-055-275-9573 (work) E-mail: ahmad.sadiddin@gmail.com (personal); ahmad.sadiddin@unifi.it (work) Received: August 13, 2014 Accepted: August 30, 2014 Published: September 19, 2014 doi:10.5296/ijch.v1i2.6132 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5296/ijch.v1i2.6132 Abstract This essay presents an extensive review of Diana Hunt’s Economic Theories of Development, aiming to expose the reader to the most important points of the book. The author starts by an introduction to present the economic heritage of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries that formed the basis upon which the reviewed development economists constructed their models and theories. She then works to classify the economic literature under six main headings and moves to demonstrate the main elements of each paradigm, their contributions to the debate of development economics or to policy formulation before discussing the critiques levied against each. A final chapter of the book is devoted to comprehensive comparisons among different paradigms demonstrating potential points of similarities and divergences among each other, and possible influence from each one on others. Keywords: Development economics, Paradigm, Intellectual framework, Critique, Debate, Policy formulation Preface Why reviewing a book of 25 years old? There might be several reasons for doing so, but I see the most important one is that in the last 20 years, development economics textbooks have been dominated to a large extent by one only theory: neoclassical economics, whether in its orthodox view or in one or more of it extensions such as neo-institutional economics and information economics. Despites all critiques levied against the weaknesses of this theory, whether related to its own theoretical flaws or to its failures as a guide for development