Tuesday, July 7, 2020
Latest:

References   [ + ]

1. ↑ ‘Making Reform Work for the People’, Rajiv Kumar; EPW, Vol 51, No: 19 and ‘Confronting Everyday Humiliation: Response from an Adivasi’, Ramdas Rupvath, EPW, Vol 51, No: 31.
2. ↑ ‘The 1990s Reforms: How Home Grown Were They?’, EPW, Vol 51, No 29, p 39.
3. ↑ Between 1982 and 1990 the number of ‘upper tranche’ loans with at least 11 conditionalities grew from 5 to 60%. WB structural adjustment loans went up from 3 to 25% in 1981–1996. (EPW Volume 52, no 33, note 6 on p 92.
4. ↑ Rajeev Kumar, op. cit, p 35
5. ↑ ‘IMF’s Auto critique of neo-liberalism?’, Pritam Singh, EPW, Vol: 51, No 32. An article in the IMF’s official magazine has admitted that “the claim that neo-liberalism always contributed to economic growth is difficult to sustain”. (p 39
6. ↑ Kumar, op cit, p 55.
7. ↑ ‘Indian Economy in Transition’, Anjan Chakrabarti, EPW, Vol 51, No: 29, p 64.
8. ↑ The State’s statistics consider any house conglomeration as an urban area and not countryside. Brazil has 5,600 cities, and 80% of them have populations of under 15,000, with most under 10,000, an about a thousand cities with under 5,000. These are in reality “rural cities,” because the inhabitants subsist as peasants. Apart from the people living in the major metropolises, only the rich peasants (farmers) and the agrarian bourgeoisie do not live in the countryside. The villages have always existed in the countryside, but the State, because of the local oligarchies’ interests in political domination promotes villages into cities in the archives. Additionally, the urban territorial tax is much lower than the rural one, which makes it in the economic interests of landowners around the cities to register their lands as urban land rather than rural.