Lewis Response To The Plantation Economic Model, Questions And Answers

Lewis touched upon the core of dualistic, non-antagonistic development and his analysis of the interactions between the two sectors provides a useful framework for understanding and development planning (Premdas and Cyr, 1991).
Premdas and St. Cyr (1991) also highlight the intrinsic (theoretical) and empirical (evidence-based) weaknesses of the model. They say that the model is “a gross over simplification of the situation in developing countries”. They argue that there are other significant sectors that can be looked at rather than only the "traditional" and "modern" sectors. For e.g. the public, non-productive sector. Bhardwaj adds that "the simple dichotomy of the model does not embrace the complexity of production and exchange relations

Lewis stated that "the model is illuminating in some places at some times but not in other places at other times". Thus it is incorrect to ascribe to it features or coverage it did not entail is misrepresentational.
In this section, we assess the theory of the plantation economy. The plantation economy model arose in response to the theory of neo-liberalism because of the specificity of the Caribbean experience and the “one size fits all” prescriptions of neoliberal globalization as the panacea for development and the Washington Consensus through International Financial Institutions. The theory aimed to understand the Caribbean through its history and processes as opposed to the traditional experiences of the metropole; mainly Europe.
The authors of the plantation economy model thus developed an innovative analytical framework as a counter to more “universalist” models which failed to take account of the Caribbean

Model I, “Pure Plantation Economy,” which represented the period of slave-based production under mercantilism; Model II, “Plantation Economy Modified,” which represented the post-emancipation period and Model III, “Plantation Economy Further Modified,” represented the modern period.
The plantation model represents an historical/structural analysis of economies created by European colonization primarily through the establishment of plantations. The plantations were characterised as the relationship of the metropole to the hinterland (or colony). Best (1968) asserted that this structure, though modified, has persisted to the present where the new industries of Model III reproduce the characteristics of the dominant plantation sector in Model I.
Their work identifies the main features of the pure plantation economy as a hinterland characterized by the hinterlands dependency on the dominant metropole. Distinguishing between hinterlands of conquest, settlement and exploitation, Best and Levitt analyze the rules that determine this complex relationship with the