 अप आप अगर करता हैं, वो वाज़े को वो परच्वाअसी बुब में लग कर मैं औलर अंख्रे की वो परच्वाब नहीं ख़ुवान नहीं हैं, यह आप वो आप पादिए लग काई लग वो परच्वाब में लग गुवीन किल्आएप खेल्गा लिएप भी तुःग लि� याजिनों लेई अज्पोर्ट और येंटेद पूलिसी जोब्ट की ती उनके क्या रेजोल्त स्थ अवर्राल ज्दिदिपीस के या ग्रोट रेट्स के ये और जो नों गलोब बलाध़र से ये जे नों लिंपोर्ट सबस्ट्रिष्चन की कि एकक या क्या लिए क्या सबस्ट्रिष्ट्रीष की आप की वूँा तो अगर हम 1950s and 60s early years की बात करे येंदिस की even वोगा पे याप के पास जो मुस्छ्ठी डीलर्पिंNT्रीष ती थी उनोने हैी ठे्रेफ रेट्स रेकप्रेट्स रखे वे बहुते जिनो ने तेरेफ्रेट यतने ज़ादा रखेवे दे यह यह यह 200 सी भी क्रोस कर रहे थे तेरेफ्रेट. तो 200% से मुराद यह आपे. तो वहापे जो प्योर्टी फोलो रही थी इंपोट सब्सुटिशन पूलिसीज और उसका इंट्टिस्टिशन की तरफ यह जारे थे खास्वर्पे 70s के अंदर और इंपोट सब्सुटिशन पूलिसीज की तरफ मेजर फोकस रहाप. जिसकर रजर्ट यह रहा के आपके पास डमेस्टिक अंट्टिश्टीच को और उस प्रटक्छन की बजाई से, आपके पास बच्चले काईने तमेस्टिक अंट्टिश्टीश के अंटर और जो प्रयशस थी कन्दुमर्स के लीए वो भाड रही होगगग. वआज जे वहाँ पे जो ड़फल्टिश ती वहाँ पे, including Pakistan, तो ये एक तास्वर बेल्द हूँ, 60s and 70s कहाँ स्वर पे, कि अब यंटिस्टलारिशिशन का दूर है, तो हमें यंटिस्टलारिशिशन की तरव जाना चाए ये, बर्ट इस ताईम की अंदर जो एक पोलिसी ती के आप ज़ादा से ज़ादा बाहर की खवाँटर्टीटीटीटीच यह आप ना आसकेजवेः, हम पहर आप यह आप दोमस्टिक खवुमर्स के लिए फुट्द कवववट्टीटीटीच को बनाएगे. बआट यह आप यह एक बलावचा यह जिसे आप कैले, के इकोनमी के अंदर वो पोस कंट्री के अंदर वो ताकत नहीं ती जो हम समच रहे थे के अंदिस्प्राज़ी अंदर हमारे लोग हैंवन वो भी अज्जेस्ट होँ जंगे जाब को लेके या इंप्लामड को लेके. तो उस्वक ये मस्राया के आपके पास जो री सोर्सेस ते वो बहुज जेड़ा शिफ्ट हुए और मेझर जो कन्सरन डाहा वो ये कि नहीं से नहीं फैक्ट्रीस बनाए जें. उसके अंदर और जो लोगों की अज्जेस्स्में ती खाँस सोर्पे जोव्स पान्टेफुई से वो कापी जादा फिर हुई आपकी ट्रदिशनल सेक्टर्स की तरव जहांपे हम लोगोने एसच तबजजो नहीं दी. वहां पे फिर वहां से गें एक और बडा इश्वौ रहा उस पीरेट केंडर कि अपके वहस मीगरेशन बवध हूई फ्रम रूलर तू उ अरबन एडयास. और वहां पे फिर वहां से गें ये इश्वौज आए के आपके पास जो जाअव्स ती वो जो अरबन एडयास केंडर खास्वोर पे वहां पे बहुज ज़ादा प्रेशर आया. तो वहां कि एक जरनल फेनामेना बनता जारा था के जो येवन पाकेसान में, to some extent still it holds, वहां से रूलर एडया से लोग, अरबन एडयास के अंदर आते हैं तु जो प्लेस्मिंट भी जो है वो भी मुष्किल हो यो स्पीरेट के अंडर कुके हम ने उस तरीके से एकसपर्टीज बिल नहीं की जो अंद्टिस्ट्रियल कंटीज करती हैं. तेर एक एक और चिस जिसनें काछी जैदा तं किया अरदेट ताएम यो रोग पाखेस्तान. तो मैं पाखेसान की एकजैमपल यस बजग्या से बारबर दे रहा हूं खेग़े ये ये ये ये सो एज़िलि आप ट्रैग्डाँउन कर सकते हैं. can also study it. If you look at import substitution policies, then there was a high capital intensity in developing countries and you were not able to absorb the labor. So I just talked about 2 types of commodities, production like labour intensive commodities and capital intensive production of commodities. So, here the capital intensity was very high. That means that you have a very high level of labour for the capital. In that case, the result of this ultimate result had to come only in the form of unemployment. And this is what developing countries experienced. And here is an interesting fact, if you look at it at that time, it looks like the example of India is a very famous example. That India basically was not a capital intensive country because the production of commodity there was very much of capital intensive because the shortage of capital was very high. This country was labour abundant. If we remember our basic trade theories, in that case it was that the factor you have is abundant. You should use it more. So, in this case India reversed it, where the capital was used more. And it was used so much that the capital over labour ratio of India and USA was equal to some extent. So, this was an interesting scenario. In fact, USA is a capital abundant country or there are still capital intensive commodities but in the industrialization period, the capital over labour ratio was so much of India that it went from USA. What happened in this period? Ultimately, the objective of poverty to trade, we should remove it, which we discussed in the last slide as well, it did not appear to be complete here. The objective of our developing countries was that it backfired a lot and your exports were very much affected. The reason for this was that we kept focusing more on the industrial product and we ignored our primary sectors. And we kept importing the capital goods because of which in terms of trade, it was very much affected. And then your trade gap of developing countries increased a lot in this period, especially in this period. And even if you look at this study, which I was mentioning about, it is a very famous paper, it is a research article on trade growth and poverty relationships. What did they try to do? If you look at this table, you will see that the average growth of real GDP is seen here, of rich countries, of globalizers and then of non-globalizers. They took OECD countries and some large income countries and some globalizers. Where the tariff rates were very low, like in some Asian countries like Taiwan, Korea, Malaysia, they gave the name of globalizers, the tariff rate that they kept low. Because the indicator of globalization or globalization is that if a nation at an international level keeps its tariff and non-tariff barriers minimum, then that nation will be called as globalizers. Now, the three groups made from globalizers and non-globalizers. And then they studied basically that over the last five decades or so, how these groups have responded regarding the average growth of real GDP. If you compare it with this, you will see a lot of significant difference in specifically in the 1990s and 2000s. So, in the early 1960s, if you look at it in the 1960s, so rich countries were growing almost at the rate of 4.7 and then globalizers were at 1.4 and non-globalizers were 2.4. But after one decade, you have more than before globalizers, suppose the average growth of them has increased and then the reduced of rich countries and they are continuously decreasing every growth of real GDP. If you look at the globalizers, then if you compare it with non-globalizers or even with rich countries, then the average growth of real GDP has increased rapidly. For example, it was 2.9 in the 1970s and it was 3.5 in the 80s. And then if you look at the period from the 80s to the 90s, then you have 5 till the average growth and then it is stable at 5, at 5.0. At the contrary, if you look at it, then non-globalizers have grown but couldn't grow so fast. So, that is the reason where one thing is historically seen that developing countries how industrialization and especially import substitution experience which as such, is not good, compared to those who have less tariff rates or those countries globalizers or those who have promoted the world trade a lot or have more trade with other countries, they have grown faster.