The State in India after liberalization: Introduction
Akhil Gupta and K. Sivaramakrishnan
The authors in this book question
the perceived economic growth in India and the transformation of state and
society after the ‘economic reforms’ or liberalization in 1990s. Liberalization
in India not only changed the economic policy towards international investment
but also led to the entry of private investment in core sectors like health,
banking and education. Decentralization was also a feature of the 1990s
simultaneous with liberalization, and both have impacted together on the Indian
state. An attempt is made to find how the state channels its power while
overtly it is retreating. Secondly, the book tries to tease out the various arena
in which neoliberalization has played out quite differently in India than
elsewhere.
Through liberalization, the state
moved in favor of the industrial capitalist, by removing restrictions, enabling
foreign direct investments, eased acquisition of land, etc. In terms of
decentralization, each state was given the powers to seek its own investment
and develop its own strategies for development, creating enormous differences
and competition among the states to attract the industrial capitalists. The
state has also had to invest in massive development schemes owing to populist
pressures – in a sharp contrast to slashing public investments in other
liberalized nations. This makes the Indian context unique.
The authors argue that
liberalization changed the structure of the government as well as the normative
principles from which it derived its authority – e.g. there was a marked change
from the socialist ideals of the developmental state of the 1940s -1980s. It
also led to changed relations between centre and state governments owing to
growing strength of regional political powers, as well as the shift of state
power between levels of government (not necessarily shrinking of state power).
In the neoliberal state, the NGOs
(and/or Government Organized NGOs) also emerged as an important agent in the
interaction of people and state agents. While elsewhere rise in NGOs is
considered as a sign of democracy, in India emergence of NGOs played out
differently. Social movements transformed into social development enterprises
and often NGOs were coopted into undertaking state tasks. The state not only
funded NGOs but also created channels for imposing control and surveillance
over their activities.
Liberalization was touted to lead
to redistribution of wealth and several studies pointed to the drastic
reduction in poverty post economic reforms. However, there is considerable
debate about this issue. It is found that the developmental state and the poor
had traditionally interacted such that the poor depended on the public
investments, subsidies and credit. With the liberalization and the state’s
faith in economic growth as an engine for employment, the interaction of the
developmental state and poor changed drastically offering no cushioning for the
poor to adapt. Low agricultural growth rates, informal employment sector, and
other such features of the rural economy have led to a decline in social
development aspects as a result of increased faith in privatization – including
the delivery of basic services. There is serious drop in public spending on
healthcare and education which also marks the changing moral basis of the
state.
In the neo-liberalised state
there is also a serious reduction in the ‘developmental state as an engine of social
inclusion’. The state places these responsibilities on the market whereas,
foreign investors invest in regions conducive to their growth and rarely bother
about increasing disparities and inequalities. The law which used for asking
questions about social inequalities too has transformed over time. As the democracy
grows and evolves, there are questions being raised about how inviolate the
Constitution should be. Liberalization marks the shift from society to
individuals – it is reflected in the way law also tries to focus on the
individual rights within groups.
The book then dwells on the creation
of the enterprising-citizen – that the local traders and federation now have to
respond to the globalised market and competition, where the state itself is
interested in competitiveness rather than cooperation. Thus trade (banks, trade
laws) becomes an arena for the state to reconstruct its sovereignty.
In conclusion, the authors
highlight that the Indian difference in the liberalization has been the
component of democracy which gave a feedback to the state regarding its policy
of redistributive justice. They also emphasize that while liberalization has
led to an increase in economic growth, there has been a simultaneous increase
in social inequality between people and regions. Indian liberalization has not
followed expected or familiar trajectories and has created differential impacts
on everyday experiences of individuals and institutions.
Governing ‘‘Advanced’’ Liberal
Democracies
Nikolas Rose
The author seeks to find how the
state created apparatuses for regulation of what was personal and private and the
rules and norms of conduct in the public sphere. There is an exploration of
what constitutes freedom in the balance sought between liberty and government.
The author proposes three
hypotheses; (detailing of only the third hypotheses on advanced liberal state
has been attempted)
1.
Liberalism tried to deal with opposite
objectives: the need to govern in interest of morality and order and the need
to restrict the government to secure interests of liberty and economy. This role
was taken up initially by the ‘philanthropist’ who had claim to knowledge and
neutrality. With the rise of the idea of ‘rationality of rule’ increasingly the
role of the philanthropist was taken by the scientist, bureaucrat, engineer who
exercised authority through specialized knowledge and technology
2.
A need to tame the undesired consequences of industrial
life, wage labour, etc. was felt and a ‘social’ concept of rule emerged. There
was emphasis on building social solidarity, social security, social prosperity.
The focus shifted toward integrating individuals into a social form.
Individuals were to be governed through society. Welfare of the individual was sought through
the welfare of society. Among several problems of this form of rule was the
path of ‘total state’, where individual rights, democracy and freedoms were
subverted for ‘social welfare’.
3.
This focus on society and welfare had impacts on
public finances, individual rights and an ‘advanced liberal’ rule emerged,
which was a complex of early liberalism and certain aspects of the welfare
state. The advanced liberal rule depends on expertise of the scientists,
bureaucrat and yet subjects them to the rationality of markets (competition,
consumer demand). The rule is not through society, but through the regulation
of individual choices – individuals are governed through freedom. There is a
certain valorization of choice. This autonomizing
and pluralizing formula of rule depends on both – the individual’s pursuit of
self-realisation and also on abiding by the orders of the ‘expertise’. It rests on the value that freedom is the
cornerstone of the growth of civilization. This form of rule emerged, among
other things, as an aftermath of the World War II and as a response also to the
growing discontent with governmental overreach, the consolidation of economic
power in the middle-class, etc. A de-legitimization of the expertise was sought
as individuals reconceptualised themselves as different from the images projected
by the expertise. Marketisation gave a ‘choice’ to individuals to engage with
expertise and what kind of expertise. There is also a shift from the notion of
a centrally controlled ‘society’ to a self-regulating ‘community’ that comprises
of responsible individuals. The author
states that within this new regime of
the ‘actively responsible self’, individuals are to fulfil their national
obligations not through their relations of dependency and obligation to one
another, but through seeking to fulfil themselves. Further, individuals
are expected to become ‘‘experts of themselves’’ - to adopt an educated and
knowledgeable relation of self care. Technologies then had to be devised to
ensure that individuals are made responsible to those whom they owe allegiance.
These technologies included indirect methods of regulating individual choices such
as through mass media, advertising, and marketing. The individual is educated
to become calculative, prudent to avert risks, they are made ‘active
responsible citizens’ through the use of counseling, skilling, etc.
No comments:
Post a Comment