Central Planning in India 1950-1980, 13th Jan., 2011.

Nicholas Stern has an article, written for the Royal Economic Society, about post-war economic planning. F. A. Hayek is mentioned.

The balance of opinion in the I940S and I950S appears to have been in favour of substantial state intervention, particularly in the investment process. The leading example for the discussion was India (China was little discussed as information was very scarce and Western economists were not involved). Disenchantment with planning increased from the early I960s through the I970s and I980s. This formed a central part of what Little (I982) describes as the 'neoclassical resurgence'. This shift of the balance of views was based on the apparently heavy hand of planning in countries such as India and the rapid advance of countries which, it was argued, followed more laissez-faire policies. The outstanding growth performance of the so-called 'four dragons', South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore was particularly influential. It was argued that the achievements of countries which both encouraged response to prices and which made an effort to 'get prices right' belied the arguments of the structuralists who had emphasised the sluggishness of economic reactions and the ineffectiveness of a decentralised price system. The stultifying effect of large-scale planning was, it was suggested, exemplified by India.