Development meant, in Seers's opinion, eliminating poverty, unemployment and inequality as well.
Already Hla Myint, Gottfried Haberler and Jacob Viner had stressed this avenue - arguing along lines similar to the classical doctrine of Adam Smith that trade and specialization can increase the "extent of the market". However, it was really only in 1969 that Dudley Seers finally broke the growth fetishism of development theory.
Development, he argued, was a social phenomenon that involved more than increasing per capita output.
The German Historical School - and its English and American counterparts - could very well be deemed part of development economics.
The entire theory of economic growth can be said to be geared towards it or even underlying it.
Of course, savings could themselves be manipulated by government intervention - as Lewis had intimated and the Keynesians insisted.
Indeed, earlier, Rosenstein-Rodan (1943) had argued that increasing returns to scale made government-directed industrialization feasible.
The notion of turning "vicious circles" of low savings and low growth into "virtuous circles" of high savings and high growth by government intervention was reiterated by Hans W.
Singer in his doctrine of "balanced growth" and Gunnar Myrdal in his theory of "cumulative causation". Schultz, drawing upon his famous Chicago School thesis, turned away from physical capital accumulation to emphasize the need for "human capital" formation. Singer extended Schultz's thesis by arguing that social development as a whole - notably education, health, fertility, etc.
"primitive" versions of European nations that could, with time, "develop" the institutions and standards of living of Europe and North America.
As a result, "stage theory" mentality of economic development dominated discussions of economic development.