STATE, DEVELOPMENT AND MARGINALISED SECTIONS:
Changing Paradigm of State Intervention.
Anil Kumar. P*
(Paper presented at the UGC Sponsored Seminar on Environment, Growth and Human Development in Kerala: Consensus and Contention organised by Department of Political Science, S.N. College, Alapuzha on 27-28 February 2006.)
Globalisation is seen as a process of integration of markets, nation – states, and technological progress. But it is also seen as a deliberate project of economic liberalisation that subjugates states and individuals to more intense market forces. Now globalisation become a major force in controlling not only the economic spheres, but also the political, social and cultural spheres (Thorat and Macwan 2005:253). Globalisation entails two main changes one it involves liberalisation of international trade, allowing relatively free flow of goods and services, capital, information and technology between the countries, second, it also involves a change in the economic structures of individual countries based on private economy with more reliance on markets. The second feature necessarily involves the withdrawal of the state or minimum role of the state in economic and social governance of the economy. So privatisation of economy, channelising the economic activities through private markets, with minimum role of the state, and relatively free international trade are the key features of the new economic order. So the attempt at universalising western ‘development’ experience through IMF – World Bank sponsored Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) stimulates serious concerns from the vantage point of the role of the state, development and marginalised sections.
Development Debate and Role of the State
The very concept of development appears in close connection with the emergence of capitalism and critique of feudal society (Larrain 1989:2). During the age of competitive capitalism (1700-1860), it began to expand all over the world. It was Adam Smith who developed the ideas that are today understood to be the rudiments of capitalism. In his book The Wealth of Nations (1776), Smith advocated the principle of laissez-faire, which demanded that the government should pursue no economic policy (Baradat 1997:86). Thus capitalism manifested the liberal notions and envisaged maximum freedom to individual and minimum control of the state.
During the 20th century wars, revolutions, depressions and strengthening of freedom movements in third world countries etc. altered the previous notion of development existed in classical and neo-classical age. The response to this crisis came in the form of the ‘Keynesian Revolution’ in the economic theory. Keynesianism reformed Adam Smith’s ideas and put forwarded redistributive taxation. In his historic essay The end of Laissez-Faire, Keyne’s argues in favour of giving the state more positive role in managing economy (Arblaster 1984:86).
By 1966 a new phase sets which is characterised by slowing down of economic growth and falling rate of profit in industrial nations. In fact the crisis of 1970s provided the context for the emergence of several political and ideological trends which competed each other in challenging and breaking up the consensus on welfare and the concept of development, characterising the growing public expenditure as the root cause of the fiscal crises. In short, the reaction against Keynesianism included shift towards monetarism, which prompted privatisation, shrinkage and closure of public sectors. Economists like Hayek and Milton Friedman propose to abolish controls and protectionist tariffs, cut down public expenditure and keep a tight monetary grip. Hayek, is probably the single most influential individual economist or political philosopher to shape what is now understood as neo-liberalism. He argued that the market was a spontaneously ordered institution that has culturally evolved in the same way that the institutions of language and morality had evolved.[1]
It was during the decade of 1980s that Hayek’s political and economic philosophy was used by the west to legitimate the neo-liberal attack on bureaucratic welfare state. Finally it resulted in the commercialisation and promote the concept of individual responsibilisation. In this political context the concept of decentralisation was vitiated by the advocates of neo-liberalism. Since no one can oppose the concept of decentralisation, the international financial institutions propagated it and imposed up on third world countries as loan conditionality from the IMF and World Bank and other similar institutions (K.G. Kumar 2004:16).
‘Growth’ or ‘Development’
Discussions on development mainly centre round economic growth and the extent of state intervention in economic activities. According to the classical economic tradition, development means economic growth with autonomous spaces for private initiative in production and exchange of commodities and with market as the ultimate arbiter of economic destiny (J. Prabhash 1999: 236). Competition, pelf and profit became the propelling forces of all economic activities here. Consequently development gets commoditised and becomes a statistical category to be measured in terms of Gross National Product (GNP) and the like. On the other hand, various streams of the interventionist school, with differential emphasis on details, try to construct paradigms of development at the core of which is an absorbing concern for the distribution of social surplus generated by growth under the aegis of an interventionist state (J. Prabhash 1999: 236). Percolating through these two broad theoretical spectrums is therefore the dichotomy as to whether development is a matter of goods or of people. Any genuine development approach has to grapple with this basic issue before carving out its forms and contours.
No doubt, developments becomes real only when it is fashioned around people, commodity fetishism and undue obsession with market make it distorted and myopic. So all important insights are missed if we continue to think of it mainly in quantitative terms and in those vast abstractions—like GNP, investment, savings, etc—which have their usefulness in the study of developed countries but have virtually no relevance to development problems as such (Schumacher 1993: 125). Contrawise development means : fulfilling the basic needs of the people, equipping them mentally and physically to meet life’s challenges successfully and blunting and beating into shape exploitative fringes of the society (J. Prabhash 1999: 237). This perspective raises certain ineluctable issues which ought to figure prominently in any serious discussion on development. Of these special mention should be made of the place of social justice in development, need for people’s participation in it, relationship between development and sustainable growth and the role of the state in the overall process of development.
Retreat of the State
By the 1980s neo-liberalism both as a political philosophy and policy mix has taken deep root. During that decade many governments around the world supported the modernising reforms—thrust of neo-liberalism, particularly the exposure of the state sector of completion and the opportunity to pay off large and accumulating national debts. By contract, many developing countries had structural adjustment policies imposed upon them as loans conditions from IMF and World Bank. A significant feature of this strategy as manifested through SAP has been the ‘roll back’ of the state from development and welfare measures. The entire state apparatus has been internally restricted through process of marketisation, privatisation and deregulation. At the same time, the military security, policing and prison arms of the state have been systematically bolstered as part of generalized militarization and civil protest. Thus, ‘strong’ state is an integral to the ‘free market’ of neo-liberalism (James 2003:101).
The emergence of participatory development as a key component in development strategy is directly related to this declining legitimacy of the state under neo-liberalism. The need to down size public sector and encourage private capital initiatives prompted donor agencies to call state led, planned and centralised model is a barrier to both ‘democracy’ and ‘development’. Attempts have also been made to redefine development as a participatory/ people centered process linking, into the cultural imperatives of the society. Here civil society has emerged as an autonomous expression capable of carrying out a whole set of development and welfare functions. Civil society activism and building up individual capabilities have been projected as essential aspects of developing an alternative to planned economic system (James 2003:101).
All these factors reveal that decentralisation is one of the main tools for establishing and redefining the role of the state, in the context of globalisation. The neo-liberal state of course is the replica bank of the laissez faire state. By replacing the state with Non Governmental Organisation (NGOs) and other non-state actors, the neo-liberals can use the decentralisation as an ideological tool for reconstructing politically vigilant society to a politically neutral. Thus decentralisation is a political weapon for ‘de-politicisation’ and an ideological means for ‘Cultural transformation’, conducive to flourishing of non-literal polices. In short the state and development is concerned a serious shift is occurred that is from state oriented development to an NGO/non-state actors oriented development.
Impact on Marginalised Sections
Under the regimes of state minimalism and market maximalism, the state has been rolling back from and curtailing social spending in precisely those fields impacting directly the living conditions of the poor and vulnerable (Kunhaman M. 2002:25). Higher education is perhaps the most illustrative example of this. Now higher education is reckoned s a non-merit (private) good, deserving no subsidy. Also it may be mentioned that there have been tectonic shifts of focus from humanities and social sciences to professional and technical courses, from processing to product and from knowledge to skill. The full-cost realisation involved necessarily limits higher education to those who can afford to pay. Naturally, marginalised sections such as women, dalits and adivasis are the worst affected. It may be noted, incidentally, that the increasing digital divides will create two types of people—one with unlimited opportunities for the rich and the upwardly mobile and another of the large majority of the poor and marginalised. The market led SAP has been displacing many process such as down-sizing, outsourcing, contract labour system, etc. Here again the marginalised sections are marginalised.
De reservation process has already started with the globalisation process as the result of privatisation. In order to overcome this defect strict regulations on market by the state is needed.
Multinational Corporations and Transnational Corporations can regulate the market than that of the state. The declining sovereignty of the state and it’s change from ‘social justice’ logo of development to ‘profit motive development’ again worsening the situation of the marginalised sections.
The globalisation and liberalisation process destroyed the traditional sectors were the marginalised sections were employed. 65% of Dalits in India were employed in the agriculture and allied sectors in 1991, where as the corresponding state average was only 48%. The vast majority is still tapped in low income manual labour activities. This reveals the weak economic basis on which their social welfare gains have been made.[2]
Increasing unemployment and failure of the state to provide minimum living conditions to the poor resulted in poverty deaths and suicides. Dalit and Adivasi movements in India and also in Kerala were occurred not because of their increasing consciousness of the contemporary social reality. More than that, it is because of the direct attack on their land, property and resources by the globalist market forces.
“New Social movements” were not adequate to resist the globalist forces and in protecting the interest of the marginalised sections. It is totally depoliticised in nature and these movements doesn’t have a view of ‘whole’, instead it looks on the ‘part’.
Due to the result of the changing State, the ‘development’ agenda is not formulated by the state. It is by the TNCs and MNCs. Their priorities are not the development of the marginalised sections, but to squeeze maximum profit from all the resources. Here the state has the role of a ‘facilitator’. So ‘growth with justice’ concept is eroded from the development dictionary of the state.
All the above analysis proved the fact that the role of the state is changed and it is retreating from all welfare activities. De reservation process through the globalisation, resource exploitation and mobilisation by TNCs and MNCs lead the marginalised sections to poverty, suicide etc. Affirmative action by the state have only enveloping presence. Increasing unemployment, destruction of the traditional and agricultural sectors again worsened their situation. Wrong priority determination and undemocratic non-state actors role in development process, and depoliticisation shattered the strength of mass movements. A conscious state effort is needed to solve the basic problem. What is needed is, as Jayant Kumar Chakravarty, Assamese short story write stated, “perhaps to see something, one needs, not eyes, but heart.”
Notes
* Research Scholar, Department of Political Science, University of Kerala, Kariavattom Campus, Thiruvananthapuram. anil.sopanam@gmail.com
[1] But today Hayek argued that the “market was a spontaneously ordered institution that has culturally evolved in the same way that the institutions of language and morality had evolved. They were not the product of intelligent design; such social institutions, like their counterparts in physical world have evolved as spontaneously ordered institutions. The market, then, while the result of human actions over many generations, were not the result of human design.” See Michael Peters, “Neoliberalism”, http://www.vusst.hr/ENCYCLOPEDIA/neoliberalism.htm accessed on 30.07.2004
[2] See Approach Paper No. 2, International Congress on Kerala Studies organized by AKG Centre for Research and Kerala Studies, Thiruvananthapuram on December 9-11, 2005.
References
· Amin, Samir. 1997. Capitalism in the Age of Globalisation. New Delhi: Madhyam Books.
· Arblaster, Antony. 1984. The Rise and Decline of Western Liberalism. Oxford: Black well publishers.
· Harris, John. 2001. Depoliticising Development: The World Bank and Social Capital, New Delhi: Left Word.
· James, P.J. 2003. Political Economy of Participatory Development (Unpublished PhD. Thesis). School of International Relations. MG University, Kottayam.
· K.G. Kumar, Abhilsh. 2004. Neoliberalism, Decentralised Planning and Role of the State. A study of People’s Plan Campaign in Kerala (Unpublished M.Phil Dissertation), Thiruvananthapuram, University of Kerala.
· Kunhaman, M. 2002. Globalisation: A Subaltern Perspective. Thiruvananthapuram: Centre for Subaltern Studies.
· Larrain, Jorge 1989. Theories of Development, Cambridge: Polity Press.
· Narain Roy, Ash. 1999. The Third World in the Age of Globalisation. New York: Zed Books.
· Petras, James and Henry Veltmayer. 2001. Globalisation Unmasked: Imperialism in the 21st Century. New Delhi: Madhyam Books.
· Prabhash, J. 1999. “Development, Human Rights and the New ‘Liberal’ Agenda: A Third World Perspective” in B. Mohanan and P. Sukumaran Nair (eds). Quest for a Just World Order. Thiruvananthapuram: IDSA.
· Schumacher, E.F. 1993. Small is Beautiful: A Study of Economics as if People Mattered. London: Vintage.
· Thorat, Sukhadeo and Martin Macwan. 2005. “Liberalisation and Dalits” in Bukhadeo Thorat, Aryama and Prashant Negi (eds.) Reservation and Private Sector: Quest for Equal opportunity and Growth, New Delhi: Rawat Publications.
· Vivekanandan B. and Nimmi Kurian. 2005. Welfare States and the Future. New York: Palgrave.
Changing Paradigm of State Intervention.
Anil Kumar. P*
(Paper presented at the UGC Sponsored Seminar on Environment, Growth and Human Development in Kerala: Consensus and Contention organised by Department of Political Science, S.N. College, Alapuzha on 27-28 February 2006.)
Globalisation is seen as a process of integration of markets, nation – states, and technological progress. But it is also seen as a deliberate project of economic liberalisation that subjugates states and individuals to more intense market forces. Now globalisation become a major force in controlling not only the economic spheres, but also the political, social and cultural spheres (Thorat and Macwan 2005:253). Globalisation entails two main changes one it involves liberalisation of international trade, allowing relatively free flow of goods and services, capital, information and technology between the countries, second, it also involves a change in the economic structures of individual countries based on private economy with more reliance on markets. The second feature necessarily involves the withdrawal of the state or minimum role of the state in economic and social governance of the economy. So privatisation of economy, channelising the economic activities through private markets, with minimum role of the state, and relatively free international trade are the key features of the new economic order. So the attempt at universalising western ‘development’ experience through IMF – World Bank sponsored Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) stimulates serious concerns from the vantage point of the role of the state, development and marginalised sections.
Development Debate and Role of the State
The very concept of development appears in close connection with the emergence of capitalism and critique of feudal society (Larrain 1989:2). During the age of competitive capitalism (1700-1860), it began to expand all over the world. It was Adam Smith who developed the ideas that are today understood to be the rudiments of capitalism. In his book The Wealth of Nations (1776), Smith advocated the principle of laissez-faire, which demanded that the government should pursue no economic policy (Baradat 1997:86). Thus capitalism manifested the liberal notions and envisaged maximum freedom to individual and minimum control of the state.
During the 20th century wars, revolutions, depressions and strengthening of freedom movements in third world countries etc. altered the previous notion of development existed in classical and neo-classical age. The response to this crisis came in the form of the ‘Keynesian Revolution’ in the economic theory. Keynesianism reformed Adam Smith’s ideas and put forwarded redistributive taxation. In his historic essay The end of Laissez-Faire, Keyne’s argues in favour of giving the state more positive role in managing economy (Arblaster 1984:86).
By 1966 a new phase sets which is characterised by slowing down of economic growth and falling rate of profit in industrial nations. In fact the crisis of 1970s provided the context for the emergence of several political and ideological trends which competed each other in challenging and breaking up the consensus on welfare and the concept of development, characterising the growing public expenditure as the root cause of the fiscal crises. In short, the reaction against Keynesianism included shift towards monetarism, which prompted privatisation, shrinkage and closure of public sectors. Economists like Hayek and Milton Friedman propose to abolish controls and protectionist tariffs, cut down public expenditure and keep a tight monetary grip. Hayek, is probably the single most influential individual economist or political philosopher to shape what is now understood as neo-liberalism. He argued that the market was a spontaneously ordered institution that has culturally evolved in the same way that the institutions of language and morality had evolved.[1]
It was during the decade of 1980s that Hayek’s political and economic philosophy was used by the west to legitimate the neo-liberal attack on bureaucratic welfare state. Finally it resulted in the commercialisation and promote the concept of individual responsibilisation. In this political context the concept of decentralisation was vitiated by the advocates of neo-liberalism. Since no one can oppose the concept of decentralisation, the international financial institutions propagated it and imposed up on third world countries as loan conditionality from the IMF and World Bank and other similar institutions (K.G. Kumar 2004:16).
‘Growth’ or ‘Development’
Discussions on development mainly centre round economic growth and the extent of state intervention in economic activities. According to the classical economic tradition, development means economic growth with autonomous spaces for private initiative in production and exchange of commodities and with market as the ultimate arbiter of economic destiny (J. Prabhash 1999: 236). Competition, pelf and profit became the propelling forces of all economic activities here. Consequently development gets commoditised and becomes a statistical category to be measured in terms of Gross National Product (GNP) and the like. On the other hand, various streams of the interventionist school, with differential emphasis on details, try to construct paradigms of development at the core of which is an absorbing concern for the distribution of social surplus generated by growth under the aegis of an interventionist state (J. Prabhash 1999: 236). Percolating through these two broad theoretical spectrums is therefore the dichotomy as to whether development is a matter of goods or of people. Any genuine development approach has to grapple with this basic issue before carving out its forms and contours.
No doubt, developments becomes real only when it is fashioned around people, commodity fetishism and undue obsession with market make it distorted and myopic. So all important insights are missed if we continue to think of it mainly in quantitative terms and in those vast abstractions—like GNP, investment, savings, etc—which have their usefulness in the study of developed countries but have virtually no relevance to development problems as such (Schumacher 1993: 125). Contrawise development means : fulfilling the basic needs of the people, equipping them mentally and physically to meet life’s challenges successfully and blunting and beating into shape exploitative fringes of the society (J. Prabhash 1999: 237). This perspective raises certain ineluctable issues which ought to figure prominently in any serious discussion on development. Of these special mention should be made of the place of social justice in development, need for people’s participation in it, relationship between development and sustainable growth and the role of the state in the overall process of development.
Retreat of the State
By the 1980s neo-liberalism both as a political philosophy and policy mix has taken deep root. During that decade many governments around the world supported the modernising reforms—thrust of neo-liberalism, particularly the exposure of the state sector of completion and the opportunity to pay off large and accumulating national debts. By contract, many developing countries had structural adjustment policies imposed upon them as loans conditions from IMF and World Bank. A significant feature of this strategy as manifested through SAP has been the ‘roll back’ of the state from development and welfare measures. The entire state apparatus has been internally restricted through process of marketisation, privatisation and deregulation. At the same time, the military security, policing and prison arms of the state have been systematically bolstered as part of generalized militarization and civil protest. Thus, ‘strong’ state is an integral to the ‘free market’ of neo-liberalism (James 2003:101).
The emergence of participatory development as a key component in development strategy is directly related to this declining legitimacy of the state under neo-liberalism. The need to down size public sector and encourage private capital initiatives prompted donor agencies to call state led, planned and centralised model is a barrier to both ‘democracy’ and ‘development’. Attempts have also been made to redefine development as a participatory/ people centered process linking, into the cultural imperatives of the society. Here civil society has emerged as an autonomous expression capable of carrying out a whole set of development and welfare functions. Civil society activism and building up individual capabilities have been projected as essential aspects of developing an alternative to planned economic system (James 2003:101).
All these factors reveal that decentralisation is one of the main tools for establishing and redefining the role of the state, in the context of globalisation. The neo-liberal state of course is the replica bank of the laissez faire state. By replacing the state with Non Governmental Organisation (NGOs) and other non-state actors, the neo-liberals can use the decentralisation as an ideological tool for reconstructing politically vigilant society to a politically neutral. Thus decentralisation is a political weapon for ‘de-politicisation’ and an ideological means for ‘Cultural transformation’, conducive to flourishing of non-literal polices. In short the state and development is concerned a serious shift is occurred that is from state oriented development to an NGO/non-state actors oriented development.
Impact on Marginalised Sections
Under the regimes of state minimalism and market maximalism, the state has been rolling back from and curtailing social spending in precisely those fields impacting directly the living conditions of the poor and vulnerable (Kunhaman M. 2002:25). Higher education is perhaps the most illustrative example of this. Now higher education is reckoned s a non-merit (private) good, deserving no subsidy. Also it may be mentioned that there have been tectonic shifts of focus from humanities and social sciences to professional and technical courses, from processing to product and from knowledge to skill. The full-cost realisation involved necessarily limits higher education to those who can afford to pay. Naturally, marginalised sections such as women, dalits and adivasis are the worst affected. It may be noted, incidentally, that the increasing digital divides will create two types of people—one with unlimited opportunities for the rich and the upwardly mobile and another of the large majority of the poor and marginalised. The market led SAP has been displacing many process such as down-sizing, outsourcing, contract labour system, etc. Here again the marginalised sections are marginalised.
De reservation process has already started with the globalisation process as the result of privatisation. In order to overcome this defect strict regulations on market by the state is needed.
Multinational Corporations and Transnational Corporations can regulate the market than that of the state. The declining sovereignty of the state and it’s change from ‘social justice’ logo of development to ‘profit motive development’ again worsening the situation of the marginalised sections.
The globalisation and liberalisation process destroyed the traditional sectors were the marginalised sections were employed. 65% of Dalits in India were employed in the agriculture and allied sectors in 1991, where as the corresponding state average was only 48%. The vast majority is still tapped in low income manual labour activities. This reveals the weak economic basis on which their social welfare gains have been made.[2]
Increasing unemployment and failure of the state to provide minimum living conditions to the poor resulted in poverty deaths and suicides. Dalit and Adivasi movements in India and also in Kerala were occurred not because of their increasing consciousness of the contemporary social reality. More than that, it is because of the direct attack on their land, property and resources by the globalist market forces.
“New Social movements” were not adequate to resist the globalist forces and in protecting the interest of the marginalised sections. It is totally depoliticised in nature and these movements doesn’t have a view of ‘whole’, instead it looks on the ‘part’.
Due to the result of the changing State, the ‘development’ agenda is not formulated by the state. It is by the TNCs and MNCs. Their priorities are not the development of the marginalised sections, but to squeeze maximum profit from all the resources. Here the state has the role of a ‘facilitator’. So ‘growth with justice’ concept is eroded from the development dictionary of the state.
All the above analysis proved the fact that the role of the state is changed and it is retreating from all welfare activities. De reservation process through the globalisation, resource exploitation and mobilisation by TNCs and MNCs lead the marginalised sections to poverty, suicide etc. Affirmative action by the state have only enveloping presence. Increasing unemployment, destruction of the traditional and agricultural sectors again worsened their situation. Wrong priority determination and undemocratic non-state actors role in development process, and depoliticisation shattered the strength of mass movements. A conscious state effort is needed to solve the basic problem. What is needed is, as Jayant Kumar Chakravarty, Assamese short story write stated, “perhaps to see something, one needs, not eyes, but heart.”
Notes
* Research Scholar, Department of Political Science, University of Kerala, Kariavattom Campus, Thiruvananthapuram. anil.sopanam@gmail.com
[1] But today Hayek argued that the “market was a spontaneously ordered institution that has culturally evolved in the same way that the institutions of language and morality had evolved. They were not the product of intelligent design; such social institutions, like their counterparts in physical world have evolved as spontaneously ordered institutions. The market, then, while the result of human actions over many generations, were not the result of human design.” See Michael Peters, “Neoliberalism”, http://www.vusst.hr/ENCYCLOPEDIA/neoliberalism.htm accessed on 30.07.2004
[2] See Approach Paper No. 2, International Congress on Kerala Studies organized by AKG Centre for Research and Kerala Studies, Thiruvananthapuram on December 9-11, 2005.
References
· Amin, Samir. 1997. Capitalism in the Age of Globalisation. New Delhi: Madhyam Books.
· Arblaster, Antony. 1984. The Rise and Decline of Western Liberalism. Oxford: Black well publishers.
· Harris, John. 2001. Depoliticising Development: The World Bank and Social Capital, New Delhi: Left Word.
· James, P.J. 2003. Political Economy of Participatory Development (Unpublished PhD. Thesis). School of International Relations. MG University, Kottayam.
· K.G. Kumar, Abhilsh. 2004. Neoliberalism, Decentralised Planning and Role of the State. A study of People’s Plan Campaign in Kerala (Unpublished M.Phil Dissertation), Thiruvananthapuram, University of Kerala.
· Kunhaman, M. 2002. Globalisation: A Subaltern Perspective. Thiruvananthapuram: Centre for Subaltern Studies.
· Larrain, Jorge 1989. Theories of Development, Cambridge: Polity Press.
· Narain Roy, Ash. 1999. The Third World in the Age of Globalisation. New York: Zed Books.
· Petras, James and Henry Veltmayer. 2001. Globalisation Unmasked: Imperialism in the 21st Century. New Delhi: Madhyam Books.
· Prabhash, J. 1999. “Development, Human Rights and the New ‘Liberal’ Agenda: A Third World Perspective” in B. Mohanan and P. Sukumaran Nair (eds). Quest for a Just World Order. Thiruvananthapuram: IDSA.
· Schumacher, E.F. 1993. Small is Beautiful: A Study of Economics as if People Mattered. London: Vintage.
· Thorat, Sukhadeo and Martin Macwan. 2005. “Liberalisation and Dalits” in Bukhadeo Thorat, Aryama and Prashant Negi (eds.) Reservation and Private Sector: Quest for Equal opportunity and Growth, New Delhi: Rawat Publications.
· Vivekanandan B. and Nimmi Kurian. 2005. Welfare States and the Future. New York: Palgrave.
No comments:
Post a Comment