Similarly in Latin America, a school of thought emerged that was critical of certain aspects of classical economic doctrine, that found conventional economics too abstract, and that often advocated, with Keynes and the social democrats, state intervention in the growth process. As we have seen, neoclassical economics assumes that smoothly working market systems and effective price mechanisms organize all economies efficiently. This notion of a universal economic science (“monoeconomics”) was contested by a “structuralist approach” to development economics that insisted, instead, on the specificity of Third World economies—their differences—and therefore the inapplicability of universalist neoclassicism. Two main areas of economic practice came into contention, namely, the causes of inflation and trade theory. First, inflation: during the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s several Latin American countries experienced inflation rates of 80–100% a year. Standard deflationary policies had little effect. Conventional monetarist economists argued that inflation was caused by excessive increases in the supply of money and that price stability could be achieved by decreasing the money supply. Structuralist economists argued conversely that supply and demand operated differently in Latin American countries, with supply being inelastic (that is, requiring a large price change to bring about even small changes in the quantities of goods) because of structural characteristics like the domination of agriculture by latifundia (large estates) that did not operate on market principles. The inflation problem could be resolved only by such structural changes as land reform, import substitution (to make countries less dependent on foreign manufactures), education, and improved fiscal systems (Seers 1962, 1983).