BOOK REVIEW 69 is sought to be drawn up without looking at the patient! Are these the models from which UDG scholars and policy-makers should draw succour from? It must be added, of course, that the reviewer's acquaintance with the three aforementioned economists is only through what Ayse Trak has written and that may well be an unfortunate limitation. However, coming back to Trak, his original charges against bourgeois development economists who prescribe political solutions for the Third World, which they would not for their own nations-like Pinochet's Chile and the other Latin Amercian despots who draw sustenance from the US State Department —fall apart. After all ,two out of the three prefer absolutist states and Agaoglu's vision is an "Utopia"—an unworkable propostion, according to Trak. The only thing that can be said in tlieir favour is that th^y were staunch anti-imperialists, which, of course, many development economists are decisively not. Trak's argument with the "Western scholars'9 (except Polyani) is that for them "non-economic factors characterizing underdeveloped societies enter into the analysis only as impediments to be eliminated if economic growth and development are to be achieved'5. Instead, "...the objectives are to be defined in terms of changing the forms of integration in the world economy, and along with it, building a social system where economic activity is subordinate to indigenous values and is directed towards the achievement of socially defined needs, ..today's developed countries (should) cease to provide an ideal model to be emulated. .." If the "ideal model" which is not to be emulated is capitalism with all its attendant ugliness, one could have little argument. But the entire discussion revolves around the ethical and moral issues, the choice of political institutions. To argue that contemporary medievalist Iran or Turkey represents the requisite subordination to "indigenous values" and is an advance on liberal Western bourgeois democracy, is truly a repugnant proposition. s c