Scholars argue that the service sector should not be considered as an engine of growth whereas India and Pakistan have raised their share of output mainly in this sector only. What do you think?
Scholars argue that the service sector should not be considered as an engine of growth because in the normal course of development, countries first shift their employment and output from agriculture to industry and then to services. This is the conventional path followed by China, where growth is contributed by both manufacturing and service sectors.
However, India and Pakistan are experiencing a different pattern. The shift is taking place directly to the service sector, bypassing the industrial sector. The proportion of workforce engaged in industry remains low at 25 per cent in both countries. India's growth has been driven mainly by the service sector.
I think this deviation from the normal development path may not be sustainable. A strong industrial sector provides a solid foundation for economic growth by generating employment and supporting other sectors. Relying primarily on services without adequate industrial development could limit long-term growth potential.
Explanation
This question tests students' understanding of structural transformation in developing economies. The textbook highlights that India and Pakistan have skipped the intermediate stage of industrial development, shifting directly from agriculture to services. While the service sector contributes the highest share to GDP in all three countries, scholars argue this 'leapfrogging' approach is problematic because industrial development typically creates more employment opportunities and builds productive capacity. China's growth model, following the conventional path through manufacturing, is often cited as more robust. Students should recognize this distinction and form an opinion based on the evidence provided.