Structural change
It happens when a country shifts from agrarian economy to one based on services or industry. It contributes largely to the country’s economic growth. Emergence and expansion of new industries, and movement of labor from traditional industries into modern industries. Is the essence of structural change? Without these things happening, a country is not likely to achieve long-term growth. Meanwhile in the less successful cases such as in some African and Latin America countries we have seen is an obsessive attachment to a particular ideology. During 1960s and 1970s, many countries took import substitution to extremes.e.g Cameroon, then, in the 1990s, these countries adopted the orthodoxy of a “Washington Consensus,” which basically urged countries to forego any structural change policies. They were encouraged to focus on the fundamentals, and structural transformation would follow automatically. This did not quite work out for them. Those nations accompany an arrangement of preferences and the conviction that having regular assets can make them wealthier all the more rapidly. However, there is additionally the inconvenience of being characteristic asset rich, in light of the fact that the nation can experience the ill effects of alleged “Dutch disease,” which implies that non-normal asset parts have a tendency to be extremely unrewarding. For instance, those nations importing minerals like oil or copper may think that its much harder to utilize modern techniques and procedures aggressively.