Industrialization in India does not benefit the poor

My opponent states that India's industrialization does not benefit India's poor. I will argue that industrialization, under the pretext of free-market economics does in fact benefit India's poor. I will first refute my opponents arguments before stating my own. Behind my opponents rhetoric, my opponents solution to the industrialization is what my opponent terms "participatory industrialization". Upon closer examination, this system is more akin to collectivization that any free-market system, which is highly efficient. My opponent states that; "Through a productive full-employment program, they could become a propelling force for the creation and distribution of wealth" I can only assume that by "fully-employment program" my opponent is arguing that the government put all poor and illiterate to work. Unfortunately, such public works programs do not work in practice. [1]They only serve to increase taxes and are inefficient. I can hardly fathom the cost of the government putting so many people to work. My opponent then states "The guidelines would be environmental sustainability, equity and justice monitored by wider institutions and agencies, who would work with unit tiers like the present Panchayat Raj, with suitable amendments to draw units on the basis of the eco-system boundaries" I question what my opponent means by "equality" and "justice". It sounds as if my opponent is advocating further arbitrary bureaucracy. My opponent than says; "This is the route through which the poor, rejected by today's industrialization, would enter the larger economy with dignity as both producers and consumers. The composition of our national output would change as we put the internal market, constituting many local economies and populated by the poor, at center stage. The composition of output produced in this manner at the local level would be much less intensive in its use of natural resources. To reduce the pace of mad urbanization that sucks enormous natural resources for a handful of rich, by dispossessing the poor and forcing migration to cities, is a related task which only this alternative can achieve. The domestic rather than the external market must occupy the centre of economic policy, with the purchasing power rising at a faster rate at the bottom than at the top of income distribution, and the market used by the poor for local exchanges to suit their needs and priorities. " Judging from this paragraph we can assume the overall goal is to have the government employ all unemployed including illiterates and the poor, and then the government would have them produce locally in order to stop the process of "mad urbanization" and equalize the gap between rich and poor. Firstly, there is no inherent evil in urbanization. Secondly, what items would these local economies produce exactly? It is not enough to simply put people to work making products for which there is no demand for in the market. There is nothing the government can do through programs that a free-market system cannot. I will now move on to my arguments; Firstly, India has seen unparalleled economic progress since economic liberalization in the 1990's. Over 300 million people have escaped extreme poverty [2] and India has seen huge GDP growth, second only to China. We can now see that India has seen rapid growth under liberal economic policies and industrialization. Further growth can be fostered by continued privatization. My opponent briefly touched upon the agricultural situation, of which subsides and government intervention are part of the problem. [3] Removing government intervention would be a large leap in helping to solve some of the problems facing rural India. Privatization of Education, lower government spending, and reform of labor laws would all assist India in its remaining economic problems. SOURCES: [1] . http://fee.org... [2]. http://reason.com... [3]. http://web.worldbank.org...