1 Cf. The United Nations Development Decade, Proposals for Action, Document No. E/3613, Sales No. 62 II B 2, and The United Nations Development Decade at Mid-Point, An Appraisal by the Secretary-General, Sales No. 65 I 26.
2 ‘Value’ is ‘any object or representation which is or can be perceived repeatedly as worthy of desire’. This is an adaptation of the definition used by Clyde Kluckhohn and others in ‘Values and Value Orientations in the Theory of Action’, Toward a General Theory of Action, edited by Talcott Parsons and Edward Shils, A., Harper Torchbooks, 1962, p. 395.
3 On this, cf. Denis Goulet, A., ‘Ethical Issues in Development’, Review of Social Economy, Vol. XXVI, No. 2 (Sept. 1968), 97–117.
4 An interesting exception from the pen of a development economist can be found in Higgins, Benjamin, Economic Development, Problems, Principles and Policies, Norton, rev. ed., 1968, p. 390. Also Steere's, Douglas V. ‘Development: For What?’ in Development for What?, edited by Hollowell, John H., Duke University Press, 1964, pp. 213–35; and Stanley, Manfred, ‘Social Development as a Normative Concept’, The Journal of Developing Areas I (April 1967), 307.
5 On this, cf. Goulet, Denis A., ‘Development for What?’, Comparative Political Studies, Vol. I, No. 2 (July 1968), 295–312.
6 Cf. Theobald, Robert, ‘Needed: A New Development Philosophy’, International Development Review, March 1964, 21–6.
7 On this, cf. Goulet, Denis A., ‘The United States: A Case of Anti-Development’, Motive, January 1970, 6–13.
8 Cf. Aron, Raymond, ed., World Technology and Human Destiny, University of Michigan Press, 1963, pp. 37 ff., The Good Society’, and pp. 182-99 on ‘Industrial Society and the Good Life’.
9 Patch, Richard W., ’La Parada, Lima's Market’, American Universities Field Staff Reports, Vol. XIV, Nos. 1, 2, 3, all dated 1967.
10 Kluckhohn, , op. cit., p. 408.
11 Cf. Goulet, Denis A., ‘Progress Report: Research on Values in Development’. Indiana University, January 1968, Appendix C (Mimeo).
12 Dubos, René. Man Adapting, Yale University Press, 1965, passim.
13 Cf. Klineberg, Otto, Tensions Affecting Human Understanding, Social Science Research Council, 1950, passim.
14 LeVine, Robert A., ‘Outsiders’ Judgments: An Ethnographic Approach to Group Differences in Personality’, Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, Vol. 22, No. 2 (1966), 101–15.
15 Cf. Yoors, Jan, The Gypsies, Simon and Schuster, 1967, pp. 48–50.
16 Structures of vulnerability are discussed at greater length in Goulet, Denis, The Cruel Choice, A New Concept in the Theory of Development, Atheneum, 1971.
17 The original version of this questionnaire appears as Appendix C in the complete report from which this essay is drawn. Cf. Goulet, Denis A. and Walshok, Marco, ‘Values Among Underdeveloped Marginals: Illustrative Notes on Spanish Gypsies’, unpublished monograph, Department of Government, Indiana University, June 1968, 82 pp.
18 On this, cf. Caillot, Robert, ‘L'Enquête-Participation à Economie et Humanisme’, reprinted in Cahiers De VInstitut Canadien D'Education Des Adultes, No. 3 (February 1967), 121–44.
19 On this, cf. Garfinkel, Harold, Studies in Ethnomethodology, Prentice-Hall, y, Chaps. 1 and 2.
20 On the Gypsy homeland, cf. Castella-Gassol, J., El Problema Gitano, Editorial ZYX, 1967, 37–40.
21 Cf. Rodgers, Carl R., ‘Toward a Modern Approach to Values: The Valuing Process in the Mature Person’, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 68, No. 2 (1964), 160–7.