The authors of the booklet “Efficiency not Possible in Public Undertaking” pleaded for positive encouragement and freedom for the private sector in order to speed up industrialisation, arguing that everything the state started tended to lack efficiency bit by bit, and that the private sector was critical to producing the best results. The authors point out that in 1956, the private sector accounted for 95 percent of the country’s economic activity, which was inefficient and, more importantly, a good disservice to the country. In the best interests of the country, the government used to provide every chance for the private sector to grow. The government acknowledged the private sector’s contribution to laying a solid and long-term foundation for the country’s economy. The earnings made by the private sector were funnelled to the government in some way. Many academics have claimed that the public sector is inefficient. The writers came to the conclusion that the initial five-year plan’s success was largely predicated on a well-functioning transportation system. Using the advantages of rivers, a state enterprise might do a lot to help solve the transportation problem. He believed that during the second plan, the private sector should have been allowed to play a role within a well-defined realm.