The difference between "liberalization of trade" and "laissez-faire markets" is one of degree. The economists pushed for more and more "liberalization" of the Third World so that rich countries and transnational corporations could exploit the cheap labour and steal the natural resources. The economists pushed for poor countries to go into debt to international banks, and they pushed for austerity measures so that the lower classes in "liberated" poor countries couldn't reap more of the benefits from the trade, with social programs. To the extent that the middle class rose in China and India, it wasn't due to the thrust of Western economic advice, the latter being to liberalize the economies with a view to making them laissez-faire outposts for Western transnational corporations. No, it was because the Eastern governments stood against that advice in limiting other countries' access to their markets, and in carrying out socialist or protectionist policies.