Balanced growth theory requires balance between
a. Consumer goods and industrial goods
b. Capital goods and industrial goods
c. Agricultural sector and industrial sector
d. All sectors in the economy

Question

UnlockIAS · Accepted Answer

Correct — option (3), 'Only d'. Balanced growth theory, as advanced by Ragnar Nurkse and by Rosenstein-Rodan in the form of the big push, is not a doctrine about proportion between any particular pair of sectors; it is a doctrine about the economy as a whole moving forward together, and statement d. is the only one of the four that says so. The reasoning behind the theory explains why nothing narrower will do. A poor country's difficulty, on Nurkse's account, is that its domestic market is too small to support any new industry: a manufacturer who builds a factory in isolation finds that the people around him cannot afford to buy what he makes, so the inducement to invest is weak however profitable the technology might be in a richer setting. The way out is for investment to be made simultaneously across a wide range of industries, because then the workers employed in each industry become the customers of all the others, and the demand that no single investor could have created for himself is created collectively. That argument works only in proportion to how many sectors are moving at once, and it does not reduce to a pairing. It also carries a second requirement, that the sectors advance in mutually consistent proportions, since an industry expanded far beyond the capacity of those supplying its inputs or buying its output creates a bottleneck rather than growth. Statement c., balance between agriculture and industry, does state a real requirement — an industrial expansion unsupported by a growing food supply runs into rising food prices and a squeeze on wages, which is a classic constraint in a developing economy — but it is a two-sector abbreviation of the doctrine, not the doctrine itself, and the question asks what the theory requires rather than what it includes. Statements a. and b. are narrower still, and statement b. is not even a genuine opposition, since capital goods are themselves industrial goods. Only statement d. states the requirement in the form the theory actually makes it, so option (3) is the answer. Note that this question prints no closing 'which of the statements' line; the four choices follow the statement list directly.

Why the other options are wrong — (a) This option selects the balance between consumer goods and industrial goods. There is a real and important debate in that neighbourhood — the argument over whether a developing economy should build capital goods capacity first and accept a lag in consumer goods, which is the choice the Mahalanobis strategy of India's Second Plan made — but that is a debate about the composition of investment within an industrialisation strategy, not a statement of what balanced growth theory requires. Nurkse's argument is about the number of sectors moving together and about the demand each creates for the others, so reducing it to a two-way proportion between consumer and industrial goods loses the mechanism that makes the theory work. The pairing is also loosely drawn, since consumer goods are largely produced by industry and the two categories overlap rather than standing opposed.  (b) This is the strongest of the wrong answers because the statement it selects is true as far as it goes. Balance between agriculture and industry is a genuine condition of development: an industrial workforce has to be fed, and industry needs agricultural raw materials and rural purchasing power, so an economy that industrialises while its agriculture stagnates meets rising food prices, pressure on wages and a balance of payments strain on food imports. India's own planning history contains the lesson, since the food crises of the mid-1960s followed a period in which industry had received the greater share of plan resources. But a two-sector condition is a special case of the general requirement rather than the requirement itself, and when a paper prints both the special case and the general statement, the general one is what a question about what the theory requires is asking for.  (d) This option combines the two weakest statements in the list and adds their defects together. Statement a. reduces the doctrine to a proportion between consumer and industrial goods, which is a question about the composition of investment rather than about balanced growth. Statement b. is worse, because 'capital goods and industrial goods' is not a genuine dichotomy at all: capital goods — machinery, plant, equipment — are themselves a category of industrial goods, so the two terms overlap instead of dividing the field between them. The meaningful contrast a candidate is probably reaching for is between capital goods and consumer goods, which is the distinction that underlies the heavy industry debate; as printed, the statement pairs a category with the larger category that contains it, and a requirement of balance between a set and its own subset is not a coherent demand.

Concept: Balanced growth is one side of a long argument in development economics about how a poor country should invest. Nurkse's version begins from the vicious circle of poverty: because incomes are low the market is small, because the market is small there is no inducement to invest, and because there is no investment productivity and incomes stay low. His way out is a broad front of simultaneous investment, so that each new industry supplies customers for the others and the market grows from within. Rosenstein-Rodan reaches a similar conclusion by a different route, arguing that the external economies and indivisibilities in infrastructure, in the training of labour and in demand mean that only an investment programme above a certain size will succeed at all — the big push. Albert Hirschman took the opposite view, that a country short of capital and of administrative capacity cannot do everything at once and should not try; it should invest at points chosen for their linkages, letting the shortages created by a new plant pull investment backwards into its suppliers and forwards into the industries that use its output. The two doctrines are not simply rivals in the abstract: they suit different constraints, and Indian planning at various times has borne the marks of both.

State PCS 2023 Q56 — Economy PYQ with Answer

State PCS 2023 Q56 — Economy PYQ with Answer