RESUMO Este trabalho relaciona as semelhanças e aponta as diferenças entre o Desenvolvimentismo Clássico e o Novo Desenvolvimentismo e, ao final, discute os próximos passos necessários para a nova teoria perseverar no contexto atual brasileiro. Para isso, inova também ao diagnosticar, na primeira parte, uma espécie de “Desenvolvimentismo Acidental”, iniciado no fim do século XIX no Brasil, que semeou as bases para o Desenvolvimentismo Clássico. Efetivamente colocado em prática entre 1930 e 1980, o desenvolvimentismo foi depois “requentado” como base da fracassada política econômica do governo Dilma Rousseff. Ao final, discutimos os desafios do Novo Desenvolvimentismo à luz do período crítico que será iniciado após as eleições de 2018.

ABSTRACT This paper relates the differences and the similarities between the classic developmentalism and the New Developmentalism. It discusses the next steps for the new theory to persevere in the current Brazilian context. To this end, a diagnosis of what we call “Accidental Developmentalism”, initiated at the end of the 19th century in Brazil, was also made in the first part of the paper, which was sown as a basis for the classic developmentalism. Effectively put in place between 1930 and 1980, developmentalism was later adopted again during the failed economic policy of Dilma Rousseff administration. Finally, we discuss the challenges for the New Developmentalism having the critical 2018 elections as background.

Answers to a marxist critic of the rhetorical and pragmatic perspectives in economics. Based on recent discussions regarding the rhetorical perspective in economics, this paper presents an interpretation of the philosophical approach of Habermas which attempts to rescue the so called 'modern spirit', forgotten in the annals of the 19th century, similar to that presented by Marshall Berman in 1982. Following the reconstructive approach of Habermas's project of modernity, we attempt to show how a 'rhetorical approach' could be applied in the field of economics, and yet still be clearly modern by taking into account intersubjectivities, given the expanded sphere of human communication (as defended in the theory of communicative action of Habermas). In this sense, we will seek to demonstrate the philosophical limits of the anti-rhetorical critiques of, for example, Paulani (1996, 2003, 2005, 2006), which seem to underestimate the linguistic and intersubjective aspect of Habermas's philosophical project that can also be found in McCloskey’s methodological approach.

Partindo do debate atual sobre retórica em economia, o trabalho tem por objetivo trazer elementos da corrente filosófica do pragmatismo para a discussão metodológica entre economistas, particularmente no que diz respeito à teoria da verdade e suas implicações epistemológicas. Após apresentar as contribuições dos pioneiros da filosofia pragmatista, William James, John Dewey e Charles Sanders Peirce, e discutir aspectos da obra de Willard Quine e Richard Rorty, procura identificar influências dessa corrente filosófica em importantes economistas tais como John M. Keynes, Milton Friedman e Thorstein Veblen. Por fim conclui com algumas reflexões possivelmente úteis para a prática da ciência econômica.

This paper brings elements from the pragmatic philosophy to the debate on methodology in economics, with a specific concern on the theory of truth and its connection with epistemology. After briefly discussing the contributions of William James, John Dewey, Charles Sanders Peirce and the works of Willard Quine and Richard Rorty in this area, we point out to some of the influences that this school of thought may have had on the work of important economists such as John M. Keynes, Milton Friedman and Thorstein Veblen. We then conclude with some reflections that may be useful for research made by economists.