Does this make sense?

This essay has narrated the development of Mauritius over the last century by considering: (i) development objectives; (ii) strategies for development; (iii) actors and institutions involved in development; (iv) likely development into the 21st century. Firstly, it was argued that marked socio-economic development has occurred through the development objective of economic diversification, particularly in relation to the five stages of Rostow’s (1959) model, The Stages of Economic Growth. This economic diversification was achieved, not through orthodox capitalist, free-market policies, but through a combination of heterodox industrial and tourism policies in concert with strategies and actors of development, including EPZs, SAPs, and the World Bank. Secondly, it was argued that caveats of inequality exist in Mauritius’ society, namely a failure of social welfare, that violate Rostow’s transition criteria, thereby delaying transition to the final stage of Rostow’s model, the ‘Age of Mass Consumption’ and forestalling the government’s commitment to reaching the MDGs. Thirdly, given that Mauritius’ development is predicated upon the success of its nature-based tourism policy, as opposed to a traditional neoliberal development policy, it was argued that Butler’s Model of Tourist Resort Development is a more suitable model for development because it better assesses the extent to which stagnation and decline might occur and thereby resolves the contradiction between economic development and environmental conservation on the island.

Is this paragraph well written? How can it be improved? Thank you.