In either case, poverty reduction was the indirect outcome of growth. By the same token, some increase in inequality was thought to be unavoidable in the early phase of development, because the inequality would be helpful for capital accumulation, since, as suggested by the Keynesian theory of consumption, the rich have a higher marginal propensity to save than the poor. This was manifested by the strength of suggested radical alternatives, even though these were directed against an orthodoxy that now seems disconcertingly progressive by comparison to that of today. A prominent challenge to the orthodoxy was represented by the various forms of dependency theory, which promoted the view that development and underdevelopment constitute two sides of the same coin, and that autonomous development was possible only under socialism (see Cardoso and Faletto, 1979, Kay, 1989, ch.5, and Saad-Filho, 2005). These outcomes were surprising, given the expectations of spontaneous reduction of poverty through the trickle down process (see Bigsten and Levin, 2004, pp.