for pals

The absence of a liberal state has been matched by the absence of a liberal economy. After independence, the prevailing orthodoxy was central planning, often Soviet-inspired. Anti-market, anti-trade, pro-subsidy and pro-regulation, Arab governments strangled their economies. The state pulled the levers of economic power—especially where oil was involved. Where the constraints of post-colonial socialism were lifted, capitalism of the crony, rent-seeking kind took hold, as it did in the later years of Egypt's Hosni Mubarak.

Privatisation was for pals of the government.

Virtually no markets were free, barely any world-class companies developed, and clever Arabs who wanted to excel in business or scholarship had to go to America or Europe to do so.

At the beginning, I think this is a typo. But as a pattern of 'Privatisation was pals of the government', I think 'pal' is OK. Then I figure that maybe the phrase here is 'be for'. However, I don't know what it means in the paragraph. Why does the privatisation become the pals of the government? That the interpretation of this sentence is 'privatisation is just profit-making for the private relationship of government ' even makes me more confused. Could you tell me your comment?