These regressive outcomes, and the proliferation of right-wing dictatorships across the so-called “Third World”, were in sharp contrast with the achievements of the rich countries under the post-war Keynesian-social democratic consensus, and the economic successes of the countries following the Soviet and Chinese models. This study expressed a growing scepticism with the Bank’s earlier strategy of supporting “big push” growth projects, while expecting market processes to reduce poverty and inequality spontaneously (see McKinley, 2009, pp. Redistribution with Growth triggered a review of the World Bank’s emphasis on capital-intensive development and maximization of the investible surplus, as these seem to lead to income and wealth concentration and unable to generate sufficient employment. It was thought that the Bank’s new priorities should be towards promotion of labour-intensive industries and provision of education and infrastructure for the poor, especially in small-scale agriculture (now deemed to be at least as productive as large-scale production), and through transfer of land and other assets to the poor.