Editing Import substitution industrialization (section)

=== Outcomes ===
Sub-Saharan Africa's experiment with ISI created largely pessimistic results across the continent by the early 1980s. Manufacturing, which formed the core of the  big push towards industrialisation, accounted for only 7% of GDP across the continent by 1983.<ref name="Industrialization in Sub-Saharan Africa and Import substitution policy"/>{{rp|135}} The failures of the model stemmed from various external and domestic factors. Internally, efforts to industrialise came at the expense of the agricultural sector, which accounted for 70% of the region's workforce throughout the 1970s.<ref>{{cite journal |first1=Ernest|last1=Aryeetey|first2=Nelipher|last2=Moyo |title=Industrialisation for Structural Transformation in Africa: Appropriate Roles for the State" |journal=Journal of African Economies |date=2012 |page=65}}</ref> The neglect was detrimental to producers as well as the urban population, as agricultural output could not meet the increasing demands for foodstuffs and raw materials in the growing urban areas.  ISI efforts also suffered from a comparative disadvantage in skilled labor for industrial growth.<ref name="Industrial strategy for late starters">{{cite journal |first1=R.|last1=Gulhati|first2=U.|last2=Sekhar |title="Industrial strategy for late starters: the experience of Kenya, Tanzania and Zambia |journal=Staff Working Paper; No. SWP 457 |date=1981}}{{page needed|date=August 2024}}</ref>

A 1982 World Bank report stated, "There exists a chronic shortage of skills which pervades not only the small manufacturing sector but the entire economy and the over-loaded government machine."<ref name="Industrial strategy for late starters"/>{{rp|32}} Tanzania, for example, had only two engineers at the beginning of the import-substitution period.<ref name="African socialism"/>{{rp|71}} The skills shortage was exacerbated by the technological deficiencies facing African states throughout industrialisation. Learning and adopting the technological resources and skills was a protracted and costly process, something that African states were unable to capitalise on because of the lack of domestic savings and poor literacy rates across the continent.<ref name="Industrialization in Sub-Saharan Africa and Import substitution policy"/>{{rp|133}}

The failure of ISI to generate sufficient growth in industrialisation and overall development led to its abandonment by the early 1980s. In response to the underdeveloped economies in the region, the IMF and the World Bank imposed a [[wikt:neoclassical|neo-classical]] counter-revolution in Africa through [[Structural adjustment program|Structural Adjustment Programmes]] (SAPs) from 1981.<ref>{{cite journal |first1=Olu|last1=Ajakaiye|first2=John|last2=Page |title=Industrialisation and Economic Transformation in Africa: Introduction and Overview |journal=Journal of African Economies |date=2012 |page=10}}</ref>

The new economic consensus blamed the low growth rates on excessive [[protectionism]] in the industrial sector, the neglect of exports, and the low agricultural productivity.<ref>{{cite book |title=Accelerated development in sub-Saharan Africa: an agenda for action (English). |date=1981 |publisher=The World Bank}}</ref> For the [[IMF]] and the [[World Bank]], the solution to the failure of import substitution was a restructuring of the economy towards strict adherence to a [[neoliberal]] model of development throughout the 1980s and the 1990s.