Industry development policy makers have to make a very difficult choice to opt for importing industrial machinery as consumer to satisfy short-term requirements or go for industrial development making long-term commitments even enduring short-term hardships. The countries, which had strict technology transfer policies and insisted for local production, have been successful in developing industrial base. The countries, which selected to allow only local industry, like communist countries, have not been very successful in developing good industrial base rather in a lot many cases they were left with no choice but to invest for obsolete and dieing technologies. The challenge to policy makers is to develop policies that can accelerate the industrial growth but without major problems in short-term.

Industrial development policies of several underdeveloped countries are more suitable to multinationals than to the domestic industry development; this is due to the multinationals unwillingness to transfer technology and immediate economic compulsions of the underdeveloped societies. Local markets are the real development fields for modern technologies but ignorance of the policy makers leave local markets only for the benefits of the multinationals. Several policy makers believe that importing and consuming modern technology will by itself lead into long-term economic development. But in reality it is not. The countries, which do not have basic industry and are hoping to become developed on the free flow of modern technology outputs, will realise the loss once the opportunity will be gone. Another negative development philosophy, which has become popular through foreign trained expatriate experts, is the development by becoming junior partners of multinationals. The multinationals know the importance of creativity and technological innovations. These multinationals are shifting their non-creative production assignments to countries with cheaper labour force. This is a valuable opportunity from employment perspective but from long-term economic development stand point it will convert developing societies into backyard workshops of the developed countries. The prospects of real economic growth are for those societies, which will develop expertise of fundamental industry and get hold of creative industrial technology research. The developing countries must insist for a share in creative and futuristic technological work in exchange for opening their markets to multinationals. This may be achieved by forcing multinationals to setup their R&D centres in exchange to big contracts.

Textile is the major industry of south Asian agricultural countries but very few countries have a full-scale long-term plan of setting up indigenous textile machinery manufacturing facilities. Their universities are producing textile engineers just to work as maintenance technicians. If the governments become vigilant to ensure technology transfer, help textile machinery manufacturing within the countries the long-term economic benefits will be much more than the present share.

The state of development for engineering industry is even more dismal. The concept of economies of scale and global competence is the driving the policy making process, pushing underdeveloped countries to accept the dominance of developed world for future generations. In automobile industry governments are looking at high deletion as a success. It definitely increases local manufacturing of the components but it will not transfer any creative engineering research to the local assembly plants as a result it will strengthen the dependence on multinationals.

Similarly even for information technology, which is human intellect intensive industry, policies of a number of countries are based on the manufacturing industry policies. Several countries are promoting IT service industry (Call Centres, medical Transcription etc.) and project oriented software development companies. This is good for short-term employment generation. But the real challenge is to get some share in creative and futuristic R&D IT developments instead of totally perishing intellect in less creative areas working as low cost educated labour force.

A number of policy-makers recommend that governments should play the role of facilitator and enabler as per the demands of the industry. This does help in developing local businesses but most of the times it does not lead into major economic development. The governments have to plan and lead the development of the industry for overall national economic development. The profit and business objectives limit the vision of the businesses. Only the governments can provide long-term economic development vision. The governments should facilitate the industrial growth as per the national socio economic vision instead of letting profit based businesses to decide the national vision. The countries that decided their national vision for different industries and facilitated private industry to work in those areas have succeeded in achieving development targets. As the idea of the governments getting into businesses is a sure recipe of failure same is the concept of businesses deciding the national economic development goals. It is happening in a number of poor countries that the short-term demands and pressures of businesses distract the governments from the national long-term development goals. The governments must resist the businesses pressures and try to keep the focus on strategic national development goals.