Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
From the post-World War II period to date, books about the problems of underdeveloped countries have contained introductory sections discussing what should be understood by underdeveloped, developing, or some other diplomatic euphemism and, more fundamentally, what the development of such a country should mean. Often it has been concluded that a fully satisfactory definition cannot be provided; we may have to settle for specifying one or several indicators of something which has to be left rather hazy. I have never been satisfied by these explanations. The first requirement of a scientific analyst is that he should clearly define the concepts he is utilizing.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gunnar Myrdal (1974) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: