Q.What similar developmental strategies have India and Pakistan followed for their respective developmental paths?

Showing the 12 most recent of 26 on this concept.

1. CBSE 2026Set 58/2/11 markMCQ
   Q.China adopted ________ strategy in which farmers and industries bought and sold certain quantities at government fixed prices, while remaining transactions occurred at market prices. (Choose the correct option to fill in the blank) Options : (A) Dual Pricing (B) Special Economic Zones (C) Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (D) Great Leap Forward

   ›Reveal solutionSolution

   China adopted a dual pricing strategy, where a portion of output was traded at state-fixed prices and the remainder at market-determined prices.

   The question asks you to identify the economic strategy China used during its transition from a centrally planned economy toward a market-oriented one. The key clue is the description: farmers and industries could sell some of their output at government-fixed prices, but the rest could be sold at prices set by supply and demand. That is the hallmark of a dual pricing system.

   To understand why this matters, you need to see the context. After the death of Mao Zedong and the end of the Cultural Revolution, China’s leadership under Deng Xiaoping began a series of economic reforms in the late 1970s. The goal was to boost productivity and efficiency without causing the social chaos of a sudden, complete shift to capitalism. The solution was a gradual, two-track approach.

   Under the dual pricing system, the state continued to set quotas and fixed prices for essential goods — ensuring that basic needs and state industries were still supplied. But beyond that quota, producers were free to sell surplus output at whatever price the market would bear. This gave farmers and factory managers a powerful incentive to produce more, because extra output meant extra profit. It was a clever way to introduce market incentives while keeping the safety net of state control.

   Note

   The other options are all significant in Chinese history, but they do not fit the description of a pricing mechanism. The Great Leap Forward (1958–1961) was a disastrous campaign to rapidly industrialise and collectivise agriculture. The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (1966–1976) was a socio-political movement to purge capitalist elements. Special Economic Zones (SEZs) were specific geographic areas, like Shenzhen, where market-oriented policies were tested — but they are not a pricing strategy.

   Important

   The NCERT textbook for Class 11 Economics (Indian Economic Development) explicitly discusses China’s dual pricing system as a key feature of its reform process. It contrasts this with the more abrupt shock therapy adopted by Russia. The dual pricing approach allowed China to maintain social stability and achieve rapid growth without the severe initial disruptions seen in other transition economies.

   So, the blank is correctly filled by Dual Pricing. This strategy was not unique to China — it was also used in other transitional economies — but it is most famously associated with China’s successful, gradualist path to economic liberalisation.

   ✓Final answer

   In short, China adopted the Dual Pricing strategy, where a fixed quota was traded at state-set prices and the surplus at market prices, enabling a gradual transition to a market economy.

2. CBSE 2026Set 58/3/11 markMCQ
   Q.Arrange the following events of Pakistan in correct chronological order : I. Nationalisation of capital goods industries II. Establishment of Pakistan III. Introduction of economic reforms IV. Announcement of First Five Year Plan (Choose the correct option) Options : (A) III, IV, I, II (B) III, II, I, IV (C) IV, III, II, I (D) II, IV, I, III

   ›Reveal solutionSolution

   This question tests your knowledge of key historical economic events in Pakistan. The correct chronological order is the establishment of Pakistan, followed by its first Five Year Plan, then the nationalisation of industries, and finally the introduction of economic reforms.

   Understanding the chronological order of significant economic and political events is crucial in economics because it helps us trace the evolution of a country's economic policies, development strategies, and the impact of various regimes. Each event often sets the stage for subsequent policies, creating a historical context that explains current economic structures and challenges. For Pakistan, these events mark distinct phases in its economic journey, from its inception to periods of state control and later liberalisation.

   Let's place each event in its historical context:

   • II. Establishment of Pakistan: Pakistan gained independence and was established as a sovereign nation on August 14, 1947. This is the foundational event for the country.

   • IV. Announcement of First Five Year Plan: Following its establishment, Pakistan, like many newly independent nations, adopted a planned economic development approach. The First Five Year Plan in Pakistan was implemented from 1955 to 1960. Its announcement would have preceded or coincided with the start of this period, around 1955.

   • I. Nationalisation of capital goods industries: A significant shift towards state control of the economy occurred under the government of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. His administration, which came to power in 1971, initiated a widespread nationalisation program in the early 1970s (specifically, major nationalisation drives occurred in 1972 and 1974), bringing key industries, including capital goods, under government ownership.

   • III. Introduction of economic reforms: The term "economic reforms" in the context of Pakistan typically refers to the policies of liberalisation, deregulation, and privatisation that aimed to reverse the nationalisation policies of earlier decades. These reforms began to gain momentum in the late 1980s and intensified through the 1990s, moving Pakistan towards a more market-oriented economy.

   Arranging these events by their dates, we get the following sequence:

   1. II. Establishment of Pakistan (1947)
   2. IV. Announcement of First Five Year Plan (1955)
   3. I. Nationalisation of capital goods industries (Early 1970s)
   4. III. Introduction of economic reforms (Late 1980s/1990s)

   This order corresponds to option (D).

   ✓Final answer

   The correct chronological order of the events is II, IV, I, III.

3. CBSE 2026Set MARCH1 markMCQ
   Q.Cultivation of land collectively by people in China is known as

   (a) Five Year Plan

   (b) Commune System

   (c) Green Revolution

   (d) Great Leap Forward

   ›Reveal solutionSolution

   Collective cultivation of land by people in China is the Commune System — option (b).

   In the Kerala Plus One (DHSE) Economics chapter 'Comparative Development Experiences of India and its Neighbours', China's early development path is discussed.

   • The Commune System (from 1958) pooled land and other resources of many households so that farming could be carried out collectively; people worked together and shared the produce.

   • The Great Leap Forward (1958) was a wider campaign to industrialise using labour-intensive methods — not specifically the collective cultivation of land.

   • Five Year Plans are the planning framework, and the Green Revolution refers to HYV-seed based modern agriculture — neither describes collective land cultivation.

   ✓Final answer

   Correct option: (b) Commune System — the collective cultivation of land by pooled households in China.

4. CBSE 2026Set ANNUAL1 mark
   Q.Fill in the blank: Most developed industry in Pakistan is________industry.

   ›Reveal solutionSolution

   Pakistan's most developed industry is the cotton textile industry.

   Pakistan's economy relies heavily on agriculture and agro-based industry, and its most developed (leading) industry is the cotton textile industry, based on its large cotton production. Hence the blank is 'cotton textile'.

   ✓Final answer

   The most developed industry in Pakistan is the cotton textile industry.

5. CBSE 2025Set 58/4/11 markMCQ
   Q.Identify, which of the following does not indicate the similarities in the policies of India and Pakistan in the post 1947 period. (A) Dual pricing policy (B) Green revolution (C) Import substitution (D) Mixed economic system

   ›Reveal solutionSolution

   The question asks which policy was not common to both India and Pakistan after 1947. The correct answer is Dual pricing policy, because while India adopted it for fertilisers, Pakistan did not implement it as a major national strategy.

   The economic histories of India and Pakistan after 1947 share many structural similarities. Both countries emerged from colonial rule with weak industrial bases, agrarian economies, and a strong desire for self-reliance. As a result, their early development strategies often ran in parallel.

   Green revolution (option B) was a major agricultural strategy adopted by both nations in the 1960s and 1970s. India introduced high-yielding variety seeds, fertilisers, and irrigation under the leadership of M.S. Swaminathan, while Pakistan (especially in Punjab province) pursued the same approach with wheat and rice, achieving rapid gains in food grain output. So this is a clear similarity.

   Import substitution (option C) was the cornerstone of industrial policy in both countries. India’s Second Five-Year Plan (1956–61) under Mahalanobis emphasised heavy industry behind high tariff walls and import licences. Pakistan, under its own planning commissions, also followed an import-substituting industrialisation strategy, protecting domestic manufacturing from foreign competition. Both aimed to reduce dependence on imported consumer goods.

   Mixed economic system (option D) describes the blend of public and private sectors that both countries adopted. India’s Industrial Policy Resolution of 1948 and 1956 reserved key industries for the state, while allowing private enterprise in others. Pakistan similarly maintained a mixed economy, with state-owned enterprises in heavy industry, utilities, and banking, alongside a vibrant private sector. Both rejected pure capitalism or pure socialism.

   Watch out

   A common mistake is to assume that because India had a dual pricing policy for fertilisers (a controlled price for farmers and a higher price for industrial users), Pakistan must have had one too. But dual pricing was not a feature of Pakistan’s agricultural or industrial policy in the same way. Pakistan relied more on direct subsidies and market mechanisms rather than a two-tier price system.

   Dual pricing policy (option A) refers to a system where the same good is sold at two different prices — typically a subsidised price for a target group and a market price for others. India implemented this for fertilisers and some food grains through the Public Distribution System (PDS) and the Fertiliser Control Order. Pakistan, however, did not adopt a formal dual pricing mechanism as a central policy tool. Its fertiliser distribution was handled through subsidies and credit, not through a two-price system. Therefore, this is the one that does not indicate a similarity.

   ✓Final answer

   The policy that does not indicate a similarity between India and Pakistan in the post-1947 period is Dual pricing policy (Option A).

6. CBSE 2025Set 58/5/11 markMCQ
   Q.Study the following image carefully : [Flowchart — Similarities in Policies of India and Pakistan →

   (1) Mixed Economic System;

   (2) Green Revolution;

   (3) ? ] From the following, choose the correct option which indicates similarities in the policies of India and Pakistan, in the post-1947 period : (Choose the correct option) (A) Dual pricing policy (B) Commune system (C) Import substitution (D) Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution

   ›Reveal solutionSolution

   Both India and Pakistan adopted import substitution strategies after 1947 to build domestic industries and reduce dependence on foreign goods; this was the defining similarity in their early development policies alongside mixed economies and the Green Revolution.

   The Economic Logic of Import Substitution

   When India and Pakistan gained independence in 1947, both inherited colonial economies structured to export raw materials and import manufactured goods. The new governments faced a common challenge: how to industrialize quickly and reduce vulnerability to foreign suppliers.

   Import substitution industrialization (ISI) emerged as the answer. The core idea is straightforward. Instead of importing finished goods—textiles, machinery, consumer durables—a country protects and nurtures domestic industries to produce those goods at home. You raise tariff walls, impose quotas, restrict foreign exchange for imports, and channel resources toward local manufacturers. The infant industry argument underpins this: new industries need temporary shelter from established foreign competitors until they achieve scale and efficiency.

   Both countries embraced this strategy in their early Five-Year Plans. India's industrial policy resolution of 1956 reserved key sectors for the public sector and used licensing (the "permit-license-quota raj") to control industrial expansion and limit imports. Pakistan similarly protected its nascent manufacturing base, particularly textiles and light consumer goods, through high tariffs and import controls. The goal was self-reliance—swadeshi in India's vocabulary, economic sovereignty in Pakistan's.

   This shared approach contrasts sharply with export-led growth strategies adopted later by East Asian economies. Import substitution prioritizes the domestic market first, building capacity behind protective barriers rather than competing immediately in global markets.

   Why the Other Options Don't Fit

   Let's eliminate the alternatives systematically.

   Dual pricing policy (option A) refers to maintaining different prices for the same good in different markets—often a state-controlled lower price for essentials alongside a market price. While both countries experimented with price controls on food grains and essential commodities, this was never a defining similarity in their broader economic strategies the way import substitution was. Dual pricing became more prominent in China's reforms of the 1980s.

   Commune system (option B) was Mao's China, not South Asia. After 1958, China collectivized agriculture into vast people's communes where land, labor, and output were pooled. Neither India nor Pakistan adopted anything remotely similar. India pursued cooperative farming in limited areas but retained private landholding; Pakistan's agriculture remained overwhelmingly private.

   Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (option D) was again a Chinese phenomenon (1966–76)—a political upheaval that disrupted education, persecuted intellectuals, and paralyzed the economy. It has no counterpart in Indian or Pakistani policy.

   Note

   The flowchart already lists mixed economic systems (public + private sectors coexisting) and the Green Revolution (high-yielding varieties, irrigation, fertilizers to boost food production in the 1960s–70s) as confirmed similarities. The third blank must be another policy both countries genuinely shared.

   The Historical Record

   By the 1960s, both economies showed the classic symptoms of prolonged import substitution: protected industries with little incentive to innovate, balance-of-payments crises from limited exports, and inefficient allocation of resources. India's growth rate in the first three decades averaged around 3.5 percent (the "Hindu rate of growth"), while Pakistan's was somewhat higher but still constrained by the same inward-looking model. Both eventually liberalized—India dramatically in 1991, Pakistan more gradually—but the import-substitution phase defined their early post-independence decades.

   ✓Final answer

   The correct option is (C) Import substitution. Both India and Pakistan adopted inward-looking industrialization strategies in the post-1947 period, protecting domestic industries through tariffs and quotas to reduce reliance on imports—a policy similarity as fundamental as their mixed economies and Green Revolution programs.

7. CBSE 2025Set 58/6/11 markMCQ
   Q.In China, under __________, peasants were provided with pooled land to create larger fields that could yield greater output and they shared farm implements. (Choose the correct option to fill in the blank) (A) Joint Farming System (B) Commune System (C) Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (D) Green Revolution

   ›Reveal solutionSolution

   China's collectivization in the 1950s pooled peasant land into large communes where farmers shared implements and worked collectively; the answer is (B) Commune System.

   The question asks about a specific institutional arrangement in Chinese agricultural history where land was pooled, fields were enlarged, and farm equipment was shared. Understanding what each option represents helps us identify the correct answer.

   The Commune System was introduced in China in 1958 as part of the Great Leap Forward. Under this system, individual peasant holdings were abolished and merged into massive collective units called People's Communes. These communes typically encompassed thousands of households. The core features were exactly what the question describes: private plots were pooled to create large collective fields (the idea being that mechanization and economies of scale would boost output), and farm tools, draft animals, and implements became communal property rather than individual possessions. Peasants worked collectively and shared the harvest according to work points.

   Let's see why the other options don't fit. The Joint Farming System (option A) isn't a standard term associated with Chinese agricultural policy; it sounds more like cooperative farming models seen elsewhere. The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (option C) was a political and social upheaval launched in 1966—more than a decade after the communes were established—focused on purging capitalist and traditional elements from society, not on agricultural organization per se. The Green Revolution (option D) refers to the global spread of high-yielding crop varieties, chemical fertilizers, and irrigation technologies starting in the 1960s, primarily in India, Mexico, and other developing countries; it was a technological package, not a land-tenure or collective-farming institution.

   Note

   The Commune System was later reformed in the early 1980s under Deng Xiaoping's leadership, when China shifted to the Household Responsibility System that returned land-use rights to individual families while retaining collective ownership—a move that dramatically increased agricultural productivity.

   ✓Final answer

   The correct answer is (B) Commune System. This was the institutional framework in China where peasants' land was pooled into large collective fields and farm implements were shared, aiming to achieve greater output through collective agriculture.

8. CBSE 2025Set 58/6/11 markMCQ
   Q.Which of the following country/countries followed the Five Year Planning structure of economic development? (Choose the correct option)

   (i) India

   (ii) China

   (iii) Pakistan

   (iv) USA Options : (A) (i),

   (ii) and

   (iii) (B)

   (ii) and

   (iii) (C)

   (i) and

   (iv) (D) Only (iv)

   ›Reveal solutionSolution

   India, China, and Pakistan all adopted the Five Year Planning model for economic development, while the USA did not.

   The Five Year Plan is a method of centralised economic planning where the government sets specific targets for growth and investment over a five-year period. This approach was famously pioneered by the Soviet Union in the late 1920s and became a hallmark of socialist and mixed-economy models across the developing world after World War II.

   India adopted its First Five Year Plan in 1951, heavily inspired by the Soviet model but adapted to its own democratic and mixed-economy framework. The Planning Commission was set up to draft and oversee these plans, which guided public sector investment, industrialisation, and agricultural reforms. China, under the Communist Party, launched its First Five Year Plan in 1953, focusing on rapid industrialisation and collectivisation of agriculture. Pakistan also followed a similar path, introducing its First Five Year Plan in 1955, with the aim of boosting industrial growth and infrastructure.

   The United States, by contrast, never adopted a Five Year Planning structure. The American economy has historically operated on a market-driven, capitalist model where the government does not set binding five-year targets for the entire economy. While the US has had various federal programs and long-term strategies (like the New Deal or the Marshall Plan), these were not formal, comprehensive Five Year Plans of the kind used in India, China, or Pakistan.

   Note

   It is worth noting that while India and Pakistan both used Five Year Plans, their political systems and economic philosophies differed. India followed a democratic socialist path, while Pakistan alternated between military and civilian governments, and China operated under a single-party communist system.

   Important

   The NCERT textbook for Class 11 Economics (Indian Economic Development) explicitly states that India, China, and Pakistan all adopted the Five Year Plan model after independence. The USA is not mentioned in this context.

   Thus, the correct answer includes India, China, and Pakistan.

   ✓Final answer

   The correct option is (A) (i), (ii) and (iii) — India, China, and Pakistan all followed the Five Year Planning structure.

9. CBSE 2024Set 58/1/11 markMCQ
   Q.In the decade of the 1970s, Pakistan nationalized its ________ industries. (Choose the correct alternative to fill in the blank) (A) Medical infrastructure (B) Consumer goods (C) Capital goods (D) Foreign trade

   ›Reveal solutionSolution

   Pakistan's 1970s nationalization wave targeted heavy industry and finance — the capital goods sector — under Bhutto's socialist reforms.

   The 1970s marked a dramatic shift in Pakistan's economic policy when Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto came to power in 1971. His government pursued an aggressive nationalization program rooted in socialist ideology, aiming to reduce the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few industrial families and to assert state control over the "commanding heights" of the economy.

   The core of this policy was the nationalization of capital goods industries — the sectors that produce machinery, equipment, and inputs for other industries rather than final consumer products. In 1972, Pakistan nationalized major industries including iron and steel, heavy engineering, heavy electrical equipment, petrochemicals, and cement. The government took over 31 major industrial units in the first wave alone. Banks and insurance companies followed in 1974, and later the vegetable oil (ghee) industry was added to the list.

   Why capital goods and not consumer goods? The logic was strategic. Capital goods industries form the backbone of industrial development — they determine a country's capacity to build infrastructure and expand production across all sectors. By controlling steel mills, heavy machinery plants, and basic chemicals, the state could direct investment, set prices for critical inputs, and theoretically accelerate industrialization. Consumer goods industries (textiles, food processing, household items) remained largely in private hands because they were seen as less strategic and more efficiently run by competitive markets.

   Note

   Medical infrastructure was never a major nationalization target in the 1970s, and foreign trade itself is a policy domain rather than an "industry" to nationalize — though the government did impose strict import controls and licensing.

   Watch out

   Don't confuse nationalization of capital goods with nationalization of all industry. Pakistan's program was selective, focused on heavy industry and finance, not the entire manufacturing base.

   The consequences were mixed. While nationalization aimed to promote equity and state-led development, many of these enterprises became inefficient, overstaffed, and loss-making. By the 1990s, Pakistan began a gradual privatization process to reverse some of these policies.

   ✓Final answer

   The correct alternative is (C) Capital goods. Pakistan nationalized its capital goods industries — heavy manufacturing, steel, chemicals, and engineering — in the 1970s under Bhutto's socialist economic reforms.

10. CBSE 2024Set 58/1/11 markMCQ
    Q.Read the following statements – Assertion (A) and Reason (R). Choose the correct alternative given below : Assertion (A) : China has used the market mechanism to create additional social and economic opportunities for its citizens. Reason (R) : Social infrastructure creation by the government has brought positive results in human development indicators in China. Alternatives : (A) Both Assertion (A) and Reason (R) are true and Reason (R) is the correct explanation of Assertion (A). (B) Both Assertion (A) and Reason (R) are true, but Reason (R) is not the correct explanation of Assertion (A). (C) Assertion (A) is true, but Reason (R) is false. (D) Assertion (A) is false, but Reason (R) is true.

    ›Reveal solutionSolution

    Both statements are true, but the Reason does not explain the Assertion — China's market reforms and its social infrastructure investments are separate, though complementary, policy tracks.

    Let's place this in the context of comparative economic development, a key theme in the study of the comparative development experiences of India and its neighbours. China's story is often held up as a dramatic example of how a centrally planned economy can embrace market forces and, in the process, lift hundreds of millions out of poverty.

    The Assertion is correct. Starting in the late 1970s, China gradually dismantled its commune system, allowed private enterprise in agriculture and later in industry, and opened its economy to foreign trade and investment. This use of the market mechanism — price signals, profit incentives, competition — did indeed create vast new social and economic opportunities. Millions of rural workers moved to coastal factories, urbanisation accelerated, and per capita incomes rose sharply. China's growth strategy relied on market-oriented reforms, and these reforms brought about a dramatic improvement in the living standards of the people.

    The Reason is also correct. The Chinese government invested heavily in social infrastructure — schools, hospitals, sanitation, and housing — especially after the initial phase of market reforms. This led to notable improvements in human development indicators: life expectancy rose, literacy rates climbed, and infant mortality fell. China's performance on the Human Development Index (HDI) has been consistently better than India's, and government spending on health and education played a major role.

    Note

    Exact HDI rankings or specific literacy/life-expectancy numbers for China are not the focus here, but China's social indicators are much better than India's, largely because of government policy in the social sectors.

    Now, the critical question: does the Reason explain the Assertion? That is, did China's social infrastructure spending cause the market to create opportunities? No. The two are related but not causally linked in the way the question suggests. The market mechanism created opportunities despite or alongside the government's social investments, not because of them. In fact, China's early market reforms were accompanied by a withdrawal of the state from many areas of economic life — it was the freeing of markets, not the building of schools, that directly generated jobs and incomes.

    Important

    The Reason describes a separate, parallel achievement of the Chinese state. It does not explain how the market mechanism worked to create opportunities. The correct relationship is that both policies were pursued simultaneously, but the causal chain in the Assertion runs from market liberalisation to opportunity creation, not from social infrastructure to market functioning.

    Therefore, both statements are factually true, but the Reason is not the correct explanation of the Assertion.

    ✓Final answer

    Both Assertion (A) and Reason (R) are true, but Reason (R) is not the correct explanation of Assertion (A). The correct alternative is (B).

11. CBSE 2024Set 58/1/11 markMCQ
    Q.Economic reforms were introduced in India and Pakistan in the years ________ and ________, respectively. (Choose the correct alternative to fill in the blanks) (A) 1988, 1978 (B) 1991, 1978 (C) 1991, 1988 (D) 1981, 1991

    ›Reveal solutionSolution

    India launched comprehensive economic liberalization in 1991 after a balance-of-payments crisis; Pakistan began structural reforms earlier in 1988 under IMF guidance. The answer is (C) 1991, 1988.

    The Context of Economic Reforms

    Economic reforms in South Asia emerged from different triggers but shared a common goal: moving away from state-dominated, inward-looking policies toward market-oriented, liberalized economies. Understanding when each country embarked on this path requires recognizing what forced their hand.

    India's reforms arrived dramatically in 1991. The country faced a severe balance-of-payments crisis—foreign exchange reserves had fallen to barely two weeks' worth of imports, and default loomed. The new government, led by Prime Minister Narasimha Rao with Dr. Manmohan Singh as Finance Minister, introduced sweeping liberalization: dismantling the License Raj, reducing import tariffs, opening sectors to private and foreign investment, and devaluing the rupee. This was not a gradual shift but a sharp break from four decades of Nehruvian socialism and planning.

    Pakistan's reform journey began earlier, in 1988, though it was less a single dramatic event than the start of a sustained structural adjustment program. After years of state intervention and nationalization (especially in the 1970s under Bhutto), Pakistan turned to the IMF and World Bank for support. The reforms included privatization of state-owned enterprises, deregulation, and trade liberalization. While Pakistan had experimented with some liberalization in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the systematic reform process is conventionally dated to 1988 when these policies gained momentum under Benazir Bhutto's government.

    Watch out

    Do not confuse Pakistan's 1988 reforms with China's 1978 reforms (Deng Xiaoping's "Reform and Opening Up") or India's tentative 1980s adjustments—those were precursors, not the full-scale liberalization that defines "economic reforms" in the comparative development literature.

    The chronology matters for comparative analysis: Pakistan reformed three years before India, yet India's post-1991 growth trajectory has been more robust, illustrating that timing alone doesn't determine outcomes—implementation, institutions, and political commitment matter just as much.

    ✓Final answer

    India introduced economic reforms in 1991; Pakistan in 1988. The correct alternative is (C) 1991, 1988.

12. CBSE 2024Set 58/2/11 markMCQ
    Q.The present day rapid industrial growth in China can be traced back to the economic reforms introduced in 1978, where __________. (Choose the correct alternative to fill in the blank)

    (i) initially reforms were initiated in agriculture, foreign trade and investment sectors

    (ii) the policy of dual pricing was adopted

    (iii) the Government revoked the policy of Special Economic Zones Alternatives: (A) Only

    (i) (B) Only

    (ii) (C)

    (i) and

    (ii) (D) (i),

    (ii) and (iii)

    ›Reveal solutionSolution

    China’s 1978 reforms began with agriculture, foreign trade, and investment, and included dual pricing — but Special Economic Zones were created after the initial reforms, not revoked. So the correct fill is (i) and (ii).

    The question asks you to identify which statements correctly describe the initial economic reforms introduced in China in 1978. This is a classic “sequence and scope” trap in comparative development studies. Let’s unpack each alternative.

    Statement (i): “Initially reforms were initiated in agriculture, foreign trade and investment sectors.”

    This is accurate. The very first wave of Chinese reforms under Deng Xiaoping started with the household responsibility system in agriculture, which dismantled communal farming and gave peasants land-use rights. Simultaneously, China opened up to foreign trade and investment, creating the open-door policy. So (i) is correct.

    Statement (ii): “The policy of dual pricing was adopted.”

    Also correct. Dual pricing meant that for the same good, there was a state-mandated price (for planned quota) and a market price (for surplus output). This allowed a gradual transition from a command economy to a market-oriented one without sudden shocks. So (ii) is correct.

    Statement (iii): “The Government revoked the policy of Special Economic Zones.”

    This is the opposite of what happened. China established Special Economic Zones (SEZs) starting in 1980 — Shenzhen, Zhuhai, Shantou, and Xiamen — to attract foreign investment and test market reforms. They were never revoked; in fact, they were expanded later. So (iii) is false.

    Watch out

    A common mistake is to confuse the timeline: SEZs came after the initial 1978 reforms, not before. The question asks what was introduced in 1978, and SEZs were set up from 1980 onward. Also, “revoked” means cancelled — which never happened.

    Thus, the correct alternatives are (i) and (ii) only.

    ✓Final answer

    The correct alternative is (C) (i) and (ii).