The debate,’ whether policies to encourage industrial upgrading should conform to current comparative advantages or aim at missing out on the ladder’, saw a battle of brains, with the protagonists, Lin and Chang, renowned experts in their own fields engaging in a productive and healthy debate, arrived to the same conclusions while at the same time holding clashing views on the matter. The following is a summary of the debate, emphasizing their differences as well as their emergent similarities on the issue (Lin and Chang 484). Technological advances and industrial upgrading have taken the center stage in many development discussions with particular reference to developing economies. Both Chang and Lin agree on the intervening role of the state with regards to this matter. However, Lin suggests the need for developing countries to import modern technology and institutions developed elsewhere and incorporate them in their system to achieve their end objective of sustained economic growth. This means that such countries should hold a comparative advantage view point, one advocated for in the Ricardo’s model. In this case, countries should focus on industries where they can specialize in a bid to enable them compete effectively with other countries. The emphasis here is on such countries using their present factors of production such as cheap labor or natural resources, rather than wait for future factors of products such as skilled labor and capital. Chang, however, is of a contrary opinion. He argues that a state needs to defy its comparative advantage in order to upgrade its industry. This is because comparative advantage will help a country to achieve its short term efficiencies that deal with the efficient use of a country’s available resources, as opposed to the medium term advantage and long term development which lead to sustained growth that is the main focus of the discussion. Chang also brings out the various differences on the assumptions implicated by the hoaxer-Ohlin-Samuelson (HOS) theory, which Lin bases his arguments on. The theory is on the assumption of perfect factor mobility. Chang questions its practicality in the real world as it is not possible for a factor of production, for instance, labor to be transferred to a different industry or country. This is because its composition is subject to change. This is because labor, in this case, in order for it to maintain its relevance in that particular industry or country, needs to be developed by improving the knowledge and skills of the worker. This is coupled with another emerging challenge of trade liberalization. This has to do with the work compensations schemes. This happens as a consequence of trade adjustment. Most governments in developing countries do not have elaborate compensation schemes that involve workers who change location or work in different industries as a result of trade adjustments. This puts a constraint on one of the main focuses of Ricardo’s theory that is of perfect factor mobility. Lin however argues that the adjustment costs that emerge from trade liberalization can be accommodated in mainstream trade models. Chang counters this suggestion by indicating that t