Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-ws8qp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T11:25:17.137Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Planning Pitfalls in India

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2011

Subbiah Kannappan
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
Get access

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Review Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Association for Asian Studies, Inc. 1963

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Bettelheim indicates this clearly when he says (p. 23): “Such a proportion of investment in the large scale industries and mines is a minimum for an industrialization plan.” Cf. also the illuminating discussion of the Mahalanobis model which provided the basis for the Indian Second Five Year Plan in Malenbaum, Wilfred, Prospects for Indian Development, George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1962, pp. 8691.Google Scholar

2 Bauer, Peter T., Indian Economic Policy and Development, New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1961, pp. 50ff.Google Scholar

3 See Harberger, A. C., “Cost-Benefit Analysis and Economic Growth,” Economic Weekly, 02 1962, pp. 207222.Google Scholar

4 “India in the 1960's Faces Economic and Political Crisis,” The Brookings Bulletin, I (Fall 1962)Google Scholar. The report highlights the findings of Professor John P. Lewis' Quiet Crisis in India: Economic Development and American Policy, to be published in December, 1962.