The dominant economic discourse has also reinforced its hold in academic and research institution throughout the world. Critical analysis is strongly discouraged; social and economic reality is to be seen through a single set of fictitious economic relations, which serve the purpose of concealing the workings of the global economic system. Mainstream economic scholarship produces theory without facts ("pure theory") and facts without theory ("applied economics"). The dominant economic dogma admits neither dissent from nor discussion of its main theoretical paradigm: the universities' main function is to produce a generation of loyal and dependable economists who are incapable of unveiling the social foundations of the global market economy. Similarly, Third World intellectuals are increasingly enlisted in support of the neoliberal paradigm; the internationalization of economic "science" unreservedly supports the process of global economic restructuring.

This official neoliberal dogma also creates its own "counter-paradigm" embodying a highly moral and ethical discourse. The latter focuses on "sustainable development" and "poverty alleviation" while often distorting and stylizing the policy issues pertaining to poverty, the protection of the environment and the social rights of women. It develops alongside and rarely challenges neoliberal policy prescriptions. It develops alongside and in harmony rather than in opposition to the official neoliberal dogma.

Within this counter-ideology (which is generously funded by the research establishment), development scholars (not to mention numerous nongovermental organizations) find a comfortable niche. Their role is to generate (within this counter-discourse) a semblance of critical debate without addressing the social foundations of the global market system. The World Bank plays, in this regard, a key role in promoting research on "poverty alleviation" and the so-called "social dimensions of adjustment". This ethical focus and the underlying categories (e.g. poverty alleviation, gender issues, equity, etc.) provide a "human face" for the Bretton-Woods institutions and a semblance of commitment to social change. However, inasmuch as this analysis is functionally divorced from an understanding of the main macro-economic reforms, it rarely constitutes a threat to the neoliberal economic agenda.