DEVELOPING COUNTRIES 5 Moreover the urban population is prone to spend too much on clothes, transportation, and so on. As a result, there is, he claims, a certain invisible "negative income" in agriculture. Finally, Viner brings out a typically Malthusian argument, as is so often done by the bourgeois economists: fecundity is high in rural areas, he argues, families have relatively more children, so incomes must be relatively lower. As a result Viner concluded that "there are no inherent advantages of manufacturing over agriculture'5 and there is no earthly reason why they should want to build up an industry of their own. His "theoretical" inferences are beautifully matched by the practice of American and other monopolies that are holding up the genuine industrialization of dependent countries. That, indeed, is the purpose of Viner's long-winded comparison of advantages of agriculture and those of manufacturing industries. Opponents of Industrialisation Viner rallies all available arguments in an effort to disprove R Prebisch^s fundamental thesis regarding disadvantages for the underdeveloped countries of the existing division of labour and the disastrous consequences of narrow specialization in the field of agriculture. All these seems, writes Viner, "for the most part mischievous fantasies, of conjectural or distorted history, or at the best, mere hypotheses relating to specific period and calling for sober and objective testing". Viner scoffs at the various industrialization projects for underdeveloped countries, calling them romantic dreams and asserting that their "scarce resources shall be allocated to their socially most productive use, and wasting resources on romantic dreams is not such a use".7 Another violent opponent of industrialization for underdeveloped countries is the American economist R F Mikesell, who says that so far as these countries are concerned "to create steel plants and other heavy industries ...in the name of fostering industrialization must surely be regarded as an unwise use of resources ard, in addition, may contribute to worldwide maladjustments in the pattern of trade".8 Mikesell wants the underdeveloped countries to concentrate exclusively on the development of their extractive industries instead of the production of finished goods, the latter to be produced solely in the United States and Western Europe. The subject of industrialization for new sovereign states is a target for mockery for J K Galbraith, prominent economist and former U S Ambassador to India. In an article published in the Indian journal Commerce he speaks with irony about the status symbols of a modern state that the underdeveloped countries want to acquire in order to be in step with the fashion. Among such symbols are: a decent airport, several imposing state edifices, paved streets in the capital, an economic plan, one sizable hydrotechnical project, and least the desire to create a steel