The above argument for emphasis on agriculture rather than industry supported by some historical factors which led to the development of agriculture and later the development of industry. The improvement in the present day industrialized nations like Japan, England, USA, Russia, German, etc; can to a considerable degree, be attributed to the development of the agricultural sector.

The improvement in transport and communication systems, efficient entrepreneurship, accumulation of wealth in Western Europe was partly a result of investment in agriculture. The birth of co-operatives in countries like Denmark in 1880, too greatly linked to agriculture as the cornerstone.

England. The agricultural sector supplied enough food for industrial ‘v and this led to not only a decrease in food prices but also to the development of the food industry.

North America. The raw materials such as cotton from agriculture worked as an input and consequently promoted industry.

Japan: Agricultural sector played a significant role in the Japanese industrialisation programmes. This was noticeable in the areas of raw n supply, savings, taxation, foreign exchange and labour force.

Russia: High productivity in agriculture led to increased incomes an savings that were channelled by the state directly or indirectly to
industrialisation. In addition, agriculture worked as a source of mar industry; capital for investment, foreign exchange and food for inc workers.

SriLanka : Through export of agricultural output like tea, rubber, cotton nuts, tobacco, etc; foreign exchange was acquired, which in turn provided equipment for investment in industry.

German. Rural workers migrated to industrial sector and productivity inc This labour transfer also made possible the collectivisation of agriculture to large-scale production.

Therefore, the argument is that agriculture provides food, raw materials, market, capital, foreign exchange and labour for both agriculture and industry. So LDCs should put more emphasis on agriculture.

Is the historical role of development in agriculture sector to facilitate industrialization in the economy of any relevance to today's LDCs?

To a considerable degree, no because times have changed.

LDCs are generally producers of primary products of low value added that fetch very low earnings.

Markets for the agricultural sector have tended to remain too small for industrial development.

Most economies of LDCs are foreign oriented economies.

There is capacity under-utilisation of resources in LDCs with most of them underdeveloped.

People in developing countries are still primitive, conservative, ignorant and indeed backward.

The existence of a large subsistence sector also implies inadequate capital.

There is widespread unemployment.

Frequent fluctuations in prices and incomes within the agricultural sector of LDCs.

Hindrances caused by limited skills.

Political instability is common in most LDCs.

Therefore, raw materials for industry are insufficient, labour inefficient, capital accumulation with the agricultural sector is low because of low rural savings. LDCs do not produce their own machinery and yet their foreign exchange earnings potential is minimal, worsened by the fluctuating earnings from export crops. The transfer of labour from agriculture to industry is limited on the excess labour on the unfertile It could, therefore, be unlikely that agriculture can sustain industrial development.