The capacity of production to supply for bigger demands, the exhaustion of low-paid working force due to specialisation do not tolerate the combination of capital (factory-based) notion and old craft skills. Consequently, craftsmanship either gradually shrinks or disappears as turbulence (Hunter, 2008). Recently, Wang and Xie (2004) do name some earlier theories developed by earlier researchers: economic take-off and transformation and a big push theory. They explain why industrialisation transformation will affect the economic growth and lead to the classification of successful fast-growing and low-paced countries as a consequence. However, in a proposal framework of Wang and Xie (2004) to identify unclear mechanism of industrial transformation, there is an indirect hindsight to the survival of traditional industries nowadays. Supposedly, traditional industry as industry 1 of which the assumed output is indispensable good (food, clothing) whilst industry 2 is modern industry assumingly producing luxury good (manufacturing product as cell phone, television) where, is implied not to be indispensable good but luxury good. By letting the value of fall throughout time, the increase in living standards will be displayed. For one instance, cell phone usage might be out-of-reach back decades ago in highly developed nations but mobile phones are must-have items. Thereupon, the industrialised distance between nations all over the world might become the motivation for running traditional business in less developed countries. One example regarding this area is India being suggested taking advantages of its two legs, one is traditional industry and the other is IT services throughout its industrialisation to catch up with China (Panagariya, 2007).
Generally speaking, the paradox "to change or to die " is deemed to be not too drastic presently. In the case of innovation in EU low-tech industries noted the absorbance of new technologies (Hirsch-Kreinsen and David Jacobson, 2008).
