This book has several other USPs that need flagging. The average economist isn’t always conversant with the law and fails to recognise legal damage during the state-intervention era and remaining legal constraints. This book is an exception, and there is thus explicit recognition of excesses from the mid-1960s to the late ’70s. Also, such books often tend to be too macro. While the macro stuff is there (under the heads of macroeconomics and transforming India), the micro stuff pervades the discussion under the government head, such as the papers on health, water supply, sanitation and education. “I also hope that those who disagree will learn enough from the book to draw their own informed conclusions.”

This is a book that will be treasured and quoted, like Bhagwati and Desai’s in an earlier era. However, is this volume for an economist or a non-economist? The answer is, both. Given the non-economist audience, the book should probably have had some kind of conclusion or epilogue. It ends abruptly with education. While the introduction is excellent, it isn’t a substitute for a concluding message.