domino theoryAtheoryofgeopoliticsorig-
inally proposed by the USA in the 1950s, claim-
ing that if one country joined or was forced
to join the Soviet Union’s sphere of influence,
then its neighbours would inevitably follow.
The theory rested upon an analogy of toppling
dominoes and was used to justify the military
and political involvement of the USA in other
countries, especially in South East Asia, in the
1950s and 1960s, but also in Central America
in the 1990s (see alsocold war). O’Sullivan
(1982) critiques the theory for ignoring the
unique history and internal politics of different
countries (the dominoes). cf
dry farming Asetoffarmingtechniques for
crop cultivation without irrigation, used in
areas with variable or little rainfall (Heathcote,
1983). Dry farming requires both water and
soil conservation measures, such as mulching,
frequent weeding and summer fallowing in
alternate years. A long-established practice in
the Near East, North Africa and north-west
India, dry farming can only produce a narrow
range of crops and low yields. These methods
were instrumental in the extension of crop
cultivation into the semi-arid areas of the
americasandaustraliaby European settlers
in the nineteenth century. Dry farming is see-
ing a minor resurgence among followers of
sustainable agriculture. jgu
Suggested reading
Hargreaves (1992).
dual economy Aneconomymade up of two
supposedly distinct parts: the modern econ-
omy and the pre-modern economy. The term
was probably first used by Dutch economist
J.H. Boeke, in his account of Indonesia as a
dual society (Boeke, 1953). Boeke maintained
that parts of Indonesian society had already
become modern: some urban enterprises were
organized according to recognizably scientific
and capitalist principles, and were situated
in neighbourhoods that seemed ‘Western’ to
Boeke. Most of Indonesia, however, was
‘Eastern’ or pre-modern: life and work here
were loosely organized and geared to the pro-
duction of things for household consumption
or local exchange.
Boeke’s work on Indonesia was meant to
contribute to public policydebates. The
question he raised was the classic mid-twenti-
eth-century question of how to get from A to
B, or from a traditional society to a modern
society (seemodernization). As in many of
thesemodels, cultural change was thought to
be driven by economicdevelopment. This
was certainly the case in W. Arthur Lewis’
(1954) account of ‘economic development
with unlimited supplies of labour’. Lewis
argued that vast pools of unproductive rural
labour could be decanted to the urban–indus-
trial sector without affecting levels offood
production. Scarce resources could then be
channelled into the ‘commanding heights of
the economy’, much as the Indian government
tried to do in its Second and Third Five Year
Plan periods (1956–66). Even better, urban
real wage rates would not rise in the short
run. Rural–urbanmigrationserved an equili-
brating function, and helped to ensure that the
modern economy would slowly take the place
of the pre-modern economy.
In the 1960s and 1970s, the logic of this
version of the dual economy model was turned
upside down. Michael Lipton (1977) famously
argued that most of thepovertyof thethird
worldwas in the countryside, along with most
of the low-cost sources of economic advance.
To neglect the rural sector in the name of an
abstract model of economic modernity was
inequitable and inefficient. It installed urban
bias as public policy and stalled the process
of human development. Other critics sympa-
thized with some parts of Lipton’s critique –
noting also the growth of urbanslumsand
shanties – while challenging the dual economy
model to which he still subscribed. Recent
thinking has focused on the complicated ways
in which ‘rur-urban households’ put together
livelihood strategies across the town/country
divide. Such thinking is focused on the eco-
nomic costs of barriers tomobility, rather than
on the presumed integrity of the urban or rural
sectors (Ellis and Harris, 2004). Still other
critics have gone further. Radical development
theorists argued that the production of pre-
capitalist spaces in an economy was a legacy
ofcolonialism, rather than a state of original
sin (seedependency theory). In any case, the
two sectors were linked to the advantage of
the ‘modern’ sector. Finally, and perhaps most
pertinently, recent work has emphasized that
modernityis not a singular condition. There
are many forms of modernity, all of which
are structured by a high degree of path depend-
ence. It is a fantasy to suppose that ‘Eastern’
parts of a dual economy can be made ‘Western’
in the sense of the mid-twentieth-century
USA, and a fantastical abuse of public policy
to push for this. scoSuggested reading
Ellis and Harris (2004); Hart (2001).Gregory / The Dictionary of Human Geography 9781405132879_4_D Final Proof page 173 1.4.2009 3:15pmDUAL ECONOMY