aissez Faire system and the economic policies that stem out of the system are undoubtedly, a produce of the West i.e Global North. The likes of Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill propagated it, but that was two centuries ago. Laissez faire is a very prominent feature in the Global North in this day. In this very decade, laissez faire brought us to see a crippling of the international economy in the form of the 2008 Sub-mortgage crisis.

My argument for this essay is that the statement is true; laissez faire policies are unlikely to generate sustained industrial growth in Late Developing countries. There will be growth, undoubtedly, but ‘sustained growth’ would be elusive with laissez faire these countries.

The ‘stage of development’ is the bigger precursor, which determined the countries’ industrial development policy. Historically, 18th century Britain was the one of the forerunners of free market capitalism- it had the advantage of being highly industrialized with the industrial revolution springing in the country itself. Hence, the development finance for the country came in the form of stock markets and retained earnings of large ventures. On the contrary, Russia which was a relatively much more backward economy had to rely on a central state to drive their industrialization.

A LESSON FROM HISTORY

Introduction of Laissez Faire into an underdeveloped society, which is not ready for such a huge change from the traditional ways, can be catastrophic. The Indian famine of 1876-78 is one such example. Where erstwhile India had historically learnt how to insulate themselves from a famine, in the form of a surplus stock kept aside which could be rationed out. The British however, introduced ‘free-market’ policies during this famine. In theory, the free-market policy applied was supposed to lead food to flow to these areas. But, on the contrary Madras saw that the grain prices r