There was a shortage of cruisers, period, in the early stage of the war, especially in the Pacific, but that paucity did not last.
You can re-examine the warship building trends of the Treaty period and the economics of that time, too, to get a better idea of how & why the cruiser situation, such as it was, came about.
I always liked H. T. Lenton's explanation that beyond a certain point, our light & heavy cruiser designs were not very different. So, the distinction between light & heavy becomes a bit moot by say, 1943. The CLEVELANDs, for example, were big robust ships, and pretty durable...especially compared to earlier Treaty class heavy cruisers.
I'm sure the fighting commanders in the war zones wanted more of them, but they wanted more of everything. I think that's universal in all militaries.
I don't claim this is a definitive answer, but it suggests some different, and hopefully informed, ways of looking at the question without going too deep in the weeds.
: Considering war losses at beginning of war why
: so few heavy cruisers being added to the USN
: WW2 fleet? Was it resources and economy or
: doctrine and tactic change?