Accumulation, Exclusion and Hegemony: Capital and Governamentality in the Era of Globalization

 

di KALYAN SANYAL

Kalyan Sanyal, intellettuale militante ed economista indiano, è di recente morto a Calcutta. Ha dato un grande contributo alla discussione sulle questioni dell’accumulazione originaria e sullo sviluppo del capitalismo, elaborando e approfondendo il concetto di capitalismo postcoloniale. Il suo libro più importante è stato tradotto in Italia nel 2010 da La casa Usher: “Ripensare lo sviluppo capitalistico. Accumulazione originaria, governamentalità e capitalismo postcoloniale: il caso indiano”. Pubblichiamo la sua relazione al convegno organizzato da UniNomade “Per ripensare lo sviluppo capitalistico: oltre la modernità e l’anti-modernità”, tenutosi all’Università di Bologna il 7 giugno 2011. Le questioni e i nodi posti dal suo lavoro continueranno a essere importanti risorse e fonti di dibattito per l’attualità politica globale.

 

The focus of my essay is broadly on postcolonial politics. My intention is to intervene into the ongoing discourse with the concept of governmentality, a concept for which we are indebted to Michael Foucault. Foucault presented governmentality as a mechanism of power that is distinct from both juridical sovereignty and the disciplinary regime. Governmentality refers to welfarist interventions with the aim of keeping the population capable and active. And in this context he talks about the governmentalization of the state, that is, the emergence of what he calls a “shepherd state”   that governs by promoting the well-being of population groups on the basis of rational cost-benefit calculations of its resources. Most of Foucault’s analytical energy in the post “Discipline and Punish” period till the end of his life was devoted to an understanding of governmentality as a distinct field of power and of the technologies of governmental interventions in their specificities.

 

Section 1

1.1 Globalization and the retreat of the welfare state

The past one and a half decades have witnessed a decline of the welfare state regime all over the world. In the advance capitalist countries of the West, the forces of globalization have allowed the logic of the global market to prevail over the autonomy of the nation states in matters of national economic policies, leading to shrinkage of the space in which the redistributive politics of social democracy had been practiced.  Moreover, the rise to the dominance of the logic of capital has led to a denigration of the public sector on the ground of efficiency, making the case for privatization of the areas of economic activities hitherto reserved for the state.

In the developing countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America, the structural adjustment program, prescribed by the Washington Consensus and imposed by the International Monetary Fund, has sought to severely restrict the internal and external deficits at any cost. Fiscal disciplining has meant substantial reduction in, and in some cases elimination of, subsidies on essential goods and public services, leaving them to forces of demand and supply in the market. At the same time, the state has been forced to shake off the financial burden of loss-making public sector enterprises by privatizing them. Such essential services as health care and education are increasingly left to the profit-driven private sector thus making them unaffordable for the economically weaker section of the population. To contain external deficit, national currencies have been substantially devalued, which has further increased the cost of living. In short, the various transfer-based entitlements enjoyed by the people in the welfare-state regime are largely being withdrawn to clear a space for the neo-liberal order in which the economic life of people are shaped and controlled by the profit calculus of the market. The welfare state of the 20^th century is being made to give way to a neo-liberal market space populated by “sovereign”, optimizing individuals.

The question that arises, the one I would like to deal with in this essay, is: does the end of the Keynesian welfare state also mark the end of governmentality in the Foucauldian sense? In other words, in the passage from sovereignty to governmentality, the subject of the sovereign was turned into an object of governance. Is this object of governance once again being supplanted by a self-seeking optimizing individual in a free market? Are the cost-benefit calculations on which interventions of welfarist governmentality had been based being replaced by an individual calculus of profit and loss in the market place?

In responding to this question, Thomas Lemke, the eminent Foucault scholar, has problematized the relationship between governmentality and the state. Governmentality, argues Lemke, should not be identified with the state; It is a more general concept than the concept of the state. The welfare state is but one form of governmentality, and there can be other forms that do not need the state as an actor. If the state is on one end of the spectrum, on the other end is the “market” of the neo-liberal regime. The rational optimizing individual who populates the neo-liberal market economy is supposed to ensure her well being and security by judicious market calculations. She would buy medical insurance for illness, insurance for unforeseen periods of unemployment and pension schemes for the old age. It is this “care of the self” that constitutes the subjectivity of the rational individual inhabiting the market economy and it is what Lemke calls the neo-liberal form of governmentality. In critiquing Nancy Fraser’s claim that Foucault’s analysis of power has ceased to be relevant in the post-Fordist era, Lemke has further asserted that while Foucault’s disciplinary society has lost some of its relevance after the decline of Fordism, Foucault continues to be relevant because discipline has given way to governmentality.

However, in Lemke’s rendition of Foucault, sovereignty and governmentality remain as two distinct regimes of power, one supplanting the other. One might go further and argue that the interpreters of Foucault generally have shown the tendency to see governmentality as distinct from sovereignty and discipline, and have sought to make visible the passage from the latter to the former.

And this is my point of departure. My purpose in this essay is to explore the relationship between capital, governmentality and democracy in the current postcolonial context. I will situate the Foucauldian story of power in the postcolonial perspective and argue that the regime of power that constitutes the current postcolonial economic and political formation is a complex one formed by an implosion of sovereignty and governmentality. I would further argue that postcolonial democracy is a process that provides the conditions for the articulation and reproduction of this complex regime of power.

In order to formulate my argument, I must begin by unraveling the relationship between governmentality and capital. Foucault’s analysis begins with an explicit unmooring of the problematic of power from the logic of capital. But in the end, the baby seems to get thrown away with the bath water and the complex relationship between capital and governmentality remains unexplored in Foucault.

 

Section 2

2.1  Accumulation by dispossession

Before I proceed, let me make three apparently unrelated observations:

Observation 1     The radical mobilizations against capitalist globalization that we have been witnessing all over the world — in the streets of Seatle, Prague, Washington, Genoa and elsewhere, the Zapatista movement in Mexico down to peasant resistance Singur and  Nandigram —- are all mobilizations against dispossession and loss of livelihood rather than against exploitation within the capitalist system of production.

Observation 2   Those who are losing their land are demanding jobs in the factories to be set up on that land, a demand that is being summarily turned down by capital.  I would like to contrast it to the fact that during the period of primitive accumulation in England, draconian laws were passed to force the dispossessed into being wage worker in the capitalist factory.

Observation 3 In India, the process of economic exclusion is being accompanied by a simultaneous process of political inclusion. The rich have more command over the economy than earlier while, at the same time, the poor have more command over the polity than earlier; and there is a mismatch. (This observation has been made by K. C. Suri in EPW, 2004)

I make these observations and put them aside for now. I will return to them.

 

2.2      Primitive Accumulation:    There have been recent attempts to understand dispossession and loss of livelihood resulting from capitalist expansion in terms of the concept of primitive accumulation. The most notable of these attempts is by David Harvey’s in his influential book titled The New Imperialism.

Primitive accumulation is the process of breaking the unity between the direct producer and the means of production, that is, of the separation of labor from the means of labor. The means of labor are transformed into capital while the dispossessed producers are turned into wage-workers within the capitalist system of production. It is only through this process that the conditions for the emergence of capitalist production are ensured.

There are several points about primitive accumulation that are to be noted:

(a) Primitive accumulation is distinct from accumulation within the system of capitalist production. It is the capitalization of the means of production that lie outside the domain of capital as distinct from production of a surplus in the interior of capitalist production.

(b) What follows from (a) is that in primitive accumulation no new assets are created; only existing assets are subsumed within the circuit of capital.

(c) Although market forces often play an important role, the state’s coercive power is the driving force behind primitive accumulation.

This is the classical model of primitive accumulation in which once the conditions of capitalist production are ensured, capital becomes self subsistent and the process of primitive accumulation ceases. In other words, it is a phase that is over once the arising of capital is complete. In Hegelian terms, primitive accumulation belongs to capital’s becoming that remains suspended in its being.

But Harvey argues that primitive accumulation is an ongoing process — an inescapable moment of capital. It is a “constitutive primitive”: there are always non-capitalist sites in an otherwise capitalist economy (i.e., the public sector, various forms of common property ) and capital at the boundary engages in primitive accumulation whenever the need arises. He is therefore reluctant to use the term primitive and calls it accumulation by dispossession. (Some have referred to it as accumulation by encroachment.). He claims that at the current juncture the moment of accumulation by dispossession dominates the moment of capitalist accumulation. And therefore the dominant form of anti-capitalist politics today is one against dispossession, rather than exploitation. This was my first observation in the beginning. 

2.3 I would argue that the story Harvey et al. tell is one sided, partial and therefore misleading. While I do think that the concept of primitive accumulation is the key to an understanding of the current experience of eviction and dispossession, I also believe that it is at work in the present postcolonial context under conditions that are radically different from those in the classical case of capitalist development in Europe.

In the classical case, the means of production in noncapitalist production were subsumed within the sphere of capital, but the dispossessed direct producers were also transformed into workers within the same sphere. Here let me recall my second observation. What is happening today is that while the resources and the means of labor are increasingly being brought within the domain of capital, a large section of the dispossessed are left out of the domain of capitalist production. Thus they are unable to sell the only commodity they are left with, their labor power. They are the excluded, the marginalized. In the classical case the dispossessed was literally whipped into the capitalist factory; today the whip of capital is used to keep them away from the factory gate.[1]

But that is not all. The capitalist growth must be legitimized as capital today, unlike in the 17^th century, has to reproduce itself within the parameters set by the discourses of human rights and democracy. This means that the excluded must be allowed to subsist. This necessitates a reverse flow of resources from the domain of capital to its outside to unite the excluded with the means of labor in non capitalist production activities, It is done through the promotion of self employment, provision of micro-credits for small-scale subsistence production, creation of self help groups and various other developmental interventions by the state, international organizations and the NGOs. So there are the simultaneous processes of primitive accumulation on one hand and the reversal of its consequences on the other.

With the reverse flow, a part of the capitalist surplus flows to constitute the need economy and it is important to differentiate it from the redistribution of land under land reforms. In the latter case, there is a reversal of the historical process of alienation of land from direct owners and the above-ceiling land is vested and redistributed to the landless. It is the same land that undergoes change of ownership. But the reverse flow of resources we are talking about here is one in which a part of the currently produced capitalist surplus is transferred from the domain of capitalist production to a non-capitalist space where it is reunited with the direct producers in need-driven production activities. In other words, a part of the surplus, which otherwise would have been ploughed back to create new capital, is extricated from the circuit of capitalist production and is thus ‘de-capitalized’.

2.4   Why must capital’s existence be legitimized in the first place? What if the dispossessed are allowed to perish? In other words, why is their rehabilitation in a need-economy essential as a politico- ideological condition for capital’s reproduction. The need for legitimation, I would argue, does not flow from any inherent characteristic of capital: there is nothing in the internal logic of capital that requires that its castaways be allowed to subsist. In fact, the history of capital’s arising in the Western Europe is marked with numerous instances in which the dispossessed in huge number simply perished in famines and epidemics, and there was no obligation on the part of capital to ensure their survival. However the context today has changed radically and the conditions of capital’s reproduction have become far more complex. The discourses of democracy and human rights have emerged on a global level and consolidated themselves to form an inescapable and integral part of the political and social order. One may want to dismiss these discourses as mere rhetoric having little functional value in the current neo-liberal order in which the predatory expansion of global capital is systematically violating the norms of human rights and democracy set by them.  But that would only keep out of sight the complexities of the interaction of the economic, political and social instances in current postcolonial development. While it is true that there are numerous instances in which the forces of capitalist accumulation are undermining the conditions of democracy and human rights, it is also true that in a reverse process the political and moral imperatives of democracy and human rights are indelibly and ineluctably shaping the strategies of accumulation. As relatively autonomous discourses, they have constituted an environment within which capital has to reproduce itself on an expanded scale. A crucial condition of that reproduction is that the victims of primitive accumulation be addressed in terms of the governmentality — interventions on the part of the developmental state (and non-state organizations) to promote the well-being of the population —- and what I identify as a reversal of primitive accumulation refers to this realm of wefarist governmentality which is an imperative of governance.

2.5 The reverse flow constitutes a need-economy which although embedded in the market is driven by the logic of need as distinct from the sphere of capital driven by the logic of accumulation. The need economy may be characterized as simple commodity production in which labor and the means of labor produce commodities that, through the mediation of the market, satisfy need. For the accumulation economy, the logic of accumulation prevails over the consideration of need, while the need-economy is governed entirely by the logic of need.

A distinction between capital and capitalism: capital combined with the need economy constitutes postcolonial capitalism.

 

Section 3

3.1 Development as discourse:

The important thing about the need- economy is that it is created as a non-capitalist space by developmental interventions, interventions that are called into play by the discursive power of “development”. Development has in recent times been understood as a discourse in the Foucauldian sense, a regime of truth that shapes our thinking about backwardness and progress, and a process through which social realty comes into being (Escobar 1995). It is a discursive space constituted by structured statements made from institutional sites producing the effect of truth, and in which only certain things can be said or imagined. The space of development is premised on a body of techno-scientific knowledge produced and disseminated from universities, research institute and international developmental organizations. In other words, development is deeply implicated in an articulation of power and knowledge.

Development as a discourse was inaugurated in the 1950s with President Truman’s historic speech in the United Nations in 1951 in which he called for direct assault on poverty and deprivation in the decolonized countries of Asia and Africa. It was a radical departure from the idea of development propounded by the classical philosophers in the sense that Economic and social transformation for the classical thinkers was a process that occurred out there, a process to be described and analyzed, but it was independent of the observer; In contrast, development in the 1950s emerged as a project in which changes had to be brought about by conscious agents through purposeful interventions. It was a project for which plans had to be made and implemented.

Materiality of a discourse lies in the practices it calls into play: the discourse is inseparable from its practices. A diachronic account of the shifts within the discursive field of development allows one to see how ‘development practices’ have changed over the decades since the inauguration of the discourse.  In the early decades, development was identified with an expanded reproduction of capital, and the sole purpose of all interventions was to create conditions favorable to (state and/or private) capitalist production by facilitating the process of transfer of all resources (e.g. labor and the means of labor) from the domain of the “traditional / pre-capitalist’ to that of the ‘modern / capitalist’.

3.2 The postcolonial case cannot be reduced to either the governmentality of the Keynesian state or to the neo-liberal form of governmentality as care of the self. The reverse flow of surplus to the need economy goes beyond direct governmental intervention of the state and takes on non-state forms such as provision of credit to self help groups by the nationalized banks with an interest subsidy given by the state, or funds flowing from the NGOs both national and international. Even private banks and financial institutions are providing micro-credits to petty producers in the informal sector on purely profit ground. The use of peer pressure to ensure loan repayment by the self help groups is a strategic deployment of the traditional kinship relations of reciprocity — valorized as social capital— to achieve governmental ends. This is neither the shepherd state nor the neo-liberal optimizing individual.

The reversal of the consequences of primitive accumulation and the constitution of a need economy is not reducible to the welfare state of social democracy. While the welfare state aims at de-commodification of labor power, it operates within the ambit of the capitalist system of production. In the postcolonial case, an economic space is constituted outside the accumulation economy of capital — it is not de-commodification but the creation of non-capitalist locations of labor in the need economy.

The postcolonial regime of power that ensures the conditions of existence and reproduction of the complex of need and accumulation economies rests on an implosion of sovereignty and governmentality. The coercive power of the state is used in favor of primitive accumulation when necessary, and the apparatus and technology of governmentality are deployed to constitute the need-economy for the excluded. Rajesh Bhattacharyya and I have argued elsewhere (Bhattacharyya and Sanyal 2011) that in the current phase of neo-liberal urbanization India, the coercive power of the state is being used to create exclusive zones for the accumulation-economy of capital where immaterial labor is hegemonic in the sense of Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri (Hardt and Negri 2004). While governmental interventions are made to create conditions for economic activities that constitute a need-economy, the need-economy is not allowed to encroach upon the exclusive zone of the accumulation economy and the sovereign power is used to retain the exclusivity. Thus sovereignty and governmentality together ensures the accumulation regime of postcolonial capital along with its political and ideological conditions of reproduction.

3.3 This new conceptualization of capitalist development dispenses with the idea of transition. The concept of primitive accumulation traditionally has been associated with a notion of transition that involves the dissolution of the pre-capitalist system of production and the emergence of the more advance and dynamic capitalist system. In this case, both pre-capitalism and capitalism have a systemic one-ness.

In the postcolonial case, there is a discontinuity within the economy: there is a dualism inherent in it; it is a complex of the accumulation economy and the need economy. What is important here is that the need economy is the site for petty production, but it is not a remnant of the past. It is created and reproduced by the reversal of primitive accumulation within capitalism. And the need economy as an outside of capital makes primitive accumulation an ongoing process. In the narrative of development, underdevelopment is posited as the initial condition that capitalist development seeks to transform. If underdevelopment remains then it must be the residual part of the initial conditions that capital has failed to transform. Here the need-economy is the product of capitalist development — it is external to capital but internal to capitalism.

3.4 The politics of postcolonial development has traditionally been dominated by the notion of transition: the postcolonial case has been portrayed as one of failure to bring about the transition after the image of the West. Politics has been understood as the politics transition where the central questions have been: what kind of class configurations are acting as the obstacle on the way to a full-scale capitalist transformation? Is there a national bourgeoisie capable of resisting the imperialistic domination and usher in a national capitalist development? If the bourgeoisie is inadequate for that task, could an alliance of the working class and peasantry bring about a people’s democratic revolution? The politics of transition was defined around these questions.

The perspective I have offered dispenses with the notion of transition and therefore makes the politics of transition irrelevant. But it simultaneously opens up a space in which a politics of exclusion can be defined. This politics arises from the contradictions between capital and the space of the excluded. And it is very different from the traditional class politics — the concept of class cannot capture the phenomenon of exclusion.

The recent political unrest over the acquisition of agricultural land for industry in Singur, West Bengal, is a case in point. The Communist Party of India (Marxist), in alliance with several other minor left parties, has been in power in West Bengal without interruption for thirty four years since 1977. The CPI (M) had emphatic victories in seven successive elections until it has been voted out of power in the last election in May, 2011. After wining the election in 2006 with a huge margin, the government adopted a program of rapid industrialization in the state and began to implement it with vigor. It decided to acquire 1000 acres of agricultural land in Singur, a very fertile agricultural region near Calcutta, and hand it over to the Tatas to set up a modern automobile plant. One of the biggest Indian corporate houses, the Tatas are increasingly becoming an important player on the global level. The prevalent form of ownership holding in West Bengal agriculture is peasant owners with a small plot of land,  thanks to the program of land redistribution undertaken two decades ago by the same government. Not surprisingly, the plot of land marked by the government for acquisition had a very large number of owners each owning a small part.

The peasants demanded, in addition to the price of the land offered by the government, one job per family in the proposed factory, a demand that was summarily turned down by the Tatas, and the government made it clear that the peasants would be given only one time monetary compensation for the land. The peasants resisted acquisition and the government invoked the eminent domain clause and deployed the coercive apparatus of the state to discipline the dissenting peasants. The resistance snowballed with the active support of civil society organizations and made its way into the international media. Finally the Tatas had to withdraw from Singur, leaving a half constructed factory on the acquired land.

Singur is in appearance almost a copybook case of primitive accumulation. But probing deeper into it, one finds a somewhat different story. In defending acquisition of agricultural land, the ruling party, the CPI(M), invoked Lenin and claimed that the automobile plant would transform an impoverished peasant economy into  a dynamic capitalist economy, and after the image of the 19^th century industrial revolution in England,  turn the displaced peasants into factory workers, as the classical case of proletarianization of the peasants would have it. And that would pave the way to the formation of the working class and a socialist transformation of the society. This is in keeping also with Marx’s endorsement of primitive accumulation despite its brutality and coercion; for Marx, it was paving the a way to an advance and dynamic mode of production.

On the other hand, those who opposed forced acquisition (e.g., the opposition party, civil society and human rights organizations) argued that the peasant community must resist the predatory face of capital. For them, peasant resistance was rooted in their attachment to land and the peasant way of life. The arguments from the two sides bring to one’s mind the Lenin- Narodniks debate.

Thus The Government and the opposition both seem to be trapped in the politics of transition. The ruling and the opposition parties are both engaged in a representation of the conflict as one between the traditional peasant economy and the capitalist economy. The sociology of contemporary peasants in Singur, however, is very different from that of 19^th century insurgent peasants in British India. What is at play here is not the political conflict over the process of transition from one mode of production to a higher one. Rather, at the heart of the conflict lies the recognition of the impossibility of transition itself— a recognition of the process of dispossession without proletarianization that leaves majority of the laboring population outside the dynamics of the great transformation. The resistance in Singur drew much of its strength from the presence in the mobilization not only of landless agricultural laborers who were left out of the proposed compensation package but more importantly of people who , although without any ownership right, derived their livelihood from the acquired land in various forms of non-farm employment. To describe it merely as peasant resistance against big capital is misleading for such description keeps out of sight the fact that it is also the resistance of excluded labor, located outside the circuit of capital, defending their subsistence driven production activities against capitalist encroachment.

The success of the government’s industrialization program hinges crucially on the ability of the government to promote need-based production activities outside the accumulation economy of capital. The preoccupation with the politics of transition is preventing the government and the ruling party from realizing this.

3.5 Let me finally go back to the third observation. I would argue that there is no paradox in the simultaneous processes of economic exclusion and political inclusion. It appears to be a paradox only if we interpret it in terms of the politics of transition.  In the imaginary of transition, the class that is dominant in the economy must also be hegemonic in the sphere of politics, because the political conditions of the reproduction of the dominance in the economy can only be ensured if the same class is hegemonic in the polity. Thus a rising bourgeoisie must aspire to attain political dominance; whether it is a war of position or a war of attrition depends on the specificity of the situation.

Once seen from the perspective of the politics of exclusion, the paradox disappears. The crucial condition for the reproduction of the accumulation economy is the political management of the space of the excluded the site for which is political society where population groups negotiate with governmental agencies for welfarist interventions. Postcolonial democracy mediates between the state and the excluded and the imperatives of democracy forces the accumulation-economy to give up a part of the surplus generated in the capitalist production process, which is then de-capitalized and used to finance employment guarantee schemes rather than swanky postmodern airports. Thus the increasing dominance of the poor and the marginalized in the polity is the flip side of their exclusion from the accumulation economy, and there is hardly a mismatch.

3.6   My purpose in this essay is to locate anti-capitalist subject positions other than the traditional working class located in the interior of capitalist production. I want to unsettle the one-ness of the economy and of the polity in order to inscribe a discontinuity in economic and as well as in political processes. The distinction I make between the need- economy accumulation-economy and Partha Chatterjee’s rendition of civil and political societies (Chatterje 2004, 2008a, 2008b) are complementary theoretical moves that seek to clear a space for a rethinking of the political economy of development in the era of globalization.

In the traditional Marxian view, the outside of capital is pre-capital which is traditional, reactionary and retrogressive. Therefore any critique of capital from outside is seen as anti-progress. Critiquing this view, Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe have pointed out that even in the time of industrial revolution, the working class that engaged in anti-capitalist struggle was heterogenous:

There were without a doubt radically anti-capitalist struggles in the nineteenth century, but they were not struggles of the proletariat — if by ‘proletariat’ we understand the type of worker produced by the development of capitalism, rather than the artisans whose qualifications and  modes of life were threatened by the establishment of the capitalist system of production. The strongly antagonistic character of the struggles of these ‘reactionary radicals’ ………..their calling into question the whole capitalist system, are explained by the fact that these struggles expressed resistance to the destruction of artisanal identities and the whole set of social, cultural and political forms which went with them Laclau and Mouffe   (1985)    pp. 157

But as I have emphasized earlier, the need-economy is not a remnant of the past but the product of the arising of capital. Far form a category related to the narrative of transition, it is the result of primitive accumulation and governmentality, and it constitutes an outside to capital that carries the potential for radical democratic struggle against the rule of capital in the era of globalization.

The postcolonial capitalist formation in the era of globalization calls for a radical rethinking of the received notions of political economy. The most important of all is the need to extricate the understanding of capitalist development from the narrative of transition and historical materialist stereotypes.

 

References

1. Bhatacharyya, R. and Sanyal, K.    “Bypassing the Squalor: Immaterial Labor and Exclusion in Postcolonial Global Cities” Economic and Political Weekly (Forthcoming)
2. Chatterjee, Partha, 2004 The Politics of the governed , Columbia University Press, New York
3.           “             2008 “Democracy and Capitalist Transformation in India” Economic and Political Weekly, April 19.
4.           “                       2008    “Classes ,Capital and Indian Democracy” Economic and Political Weekly, November 15.
5. Foucault, M.  1980 History of Sexuality, Vintage Book, New York Harvey, David 2003 The New Imperialism, Oxford University Press, London
6. Hardt, M, and Antonio Negri 2004 Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empre, Penguin Books, London
7. Jessop, Bob  “ Constituting Another Foucault Effect”  www.lancs.ac.uk
8. Laclau, Ernesto and Chantal Mouffe, 1985  Hegemony and Socialist Strategy : Towards A Radical Democratic Politics,  Verso : London
9. Lemke, Thomas 2000 “Foucault, Governmentality and Critique” Paper presented in the Rethinking Marxism Conference.

10.Sanyal, K. 2007 Rethinking Capitalist Development: Primitive Accumulation, Governmentality and Postcolonial Capitalism, Routledge, London

11.Sanyal, K. and R. Bhattacharyya 2009 “Beyond the Factory: Globalization, Informalization of Production and the New Locations of labor’ Economic and Political Weekly, Review of Labor, June

12.Suri, K.C.  2004 “Democracy, Economic Reforms and Election Results” Economic and Political Weekly, December 18