The experimentation under decentralised government enabled to assess the economic, social and political costs of success or failure. For instance, when reforms were made in agriculture, as pointed out earlier by handing over plots of land to individuals for cultivation, it brought prosperity to a vast number of poor people. It created conditions for the subsequent phenomenal growth in rural industries and built up a strong support base for more reforms. Scholars quote many such examples on how reform measures led to rapid growth in China.
Scholars argue that in Pakistan the reform process led to worsening of all the economic indicators. We have seen in an earlier section that compared to 1980s, the growth rate of GDP and its sectoral constituents have fallen in the 1990s. Though the data on international poverty line for Pakistan is quite healthy, scholars using the official data of Pakistan indicate rising poverty there. The proportion of poor in 1960s was more than per cent which declined to per cent in 1980s and started rising again in 1990s.
The reasons for the slow-down of growth and re-emergence of poverty in Pakistan’s economy, as scholars put it, are agricultural growth and food supply situation were based not on an institutionalised process of technical change but on good harvest. When there was a good harvest, the economy was in good condition, when it was not, the economic indicators showed stagnation or negative trends. You will recall that India had to borrow from the IMF and World Bank to set right its balance of payments crisis; foreign exchange is an essential component for any country and it is Country Exports from India ( Rs in crore) Imports to India (Rs in crore) - - Rate of - - Rate of Growth (%) Growth (%) , , , , , , , , Work These Out Ø While India has perfromed relatively well vis-a-vis other developing countries (including its Asian neighbours) in terms of economic growth, India’s human development indicators are among the worst in the world. Where India went wrong