Abstract
This chapter presents an overview of the significant issues concerning land, labour and the state in contemporary India. The major theoretical and empirical debates concerning the land questions under neoliberalism have been reviewed selectively from the perspective of a developing country like India. The debates around the land-livelihoods linkages have been discussed from the vantage point of the political economy of agrarian change and rural transformation under contemporary capitalism. The changing nature of state intervention, in the form of land acquisition, land reforms and land-use changes, has also been outlined to provide a backdrop to the diverse issues raised by the contributions to the volume and points to the interconnections among the issues raised by the authors in different chapters.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Change history
04 August 2020
The book was inadvertently published with incorrect title for Chap. 1.
Notes
- 1.
The diversity of the ways through which people relate to land—as a natural resource, as an economic asset, as a source of livelihood, security and as a basis of identity and belongingness—calls for a plural understanding of the significance of land in the contemporary world. Among the critical foundations of the neoliberal understanding of land is that it is merely an economic asset, which ideally should be allocated through the market mechanism.
- 2.
- 3.
While arguing against the basic premises of capitalist transition, Sanyal (2014) makes a number of critical points on the nature and significance of primitive accumulation in the post-colonial context. Of particular relevance are the following. (i) Although the need economy, the ‘wasteland’ produced by primitive accumulation, to which the dispossessed are condemned, is embedded in market-mediated relations, ‘capital and the need economy (the site of non-capital) are not locked in a relation in which economic surplus flows from the later to the former’. ‘It is a relationship based on exclusion and formation rather than inclusion and extraction’ (pp. 73). The need economy does not exist because capital needs it. (ii) It is not the result of ‘any weakening of the transformative capacity of capital’ (pp. 66). (iii) This formulation displaces the questions of capitalist transition, and post-colonial capitalism is conceptualised as ‘the structural articulation of capital and non-capital residing in the commodity space’ (pp. 70). For a critique of Sanyal’s formulations, on theoretical and empirical grounds, see Basu (2019). While these questions have important implications for understanding the questions of land and livelihoods in contemporary India, we do not engage with the agrarian transition debate here (for a recent discussion on the related issue see, Mohanty 2016).
- 4.
Mitra et al. (2017, p. 3) point out that ‘We cannot take transition for granted, merely because history happened that way. The “extra-economic” factors are always present in the economic, and only in this way, an adequate understanding of capitalism becomes possible’. On the related question of the continuing evidence of ‘unfreedom’ and ‘bondage’ under contemporary globalisation, see Brass (2011).
- 5.
We have selectively focused on some of the issues related to land in this chapter that helps contextualising the issues raised by the authors of different chapters in this volume and have not attempted to be comprehensive.
- 6.
In the long-term study of economic transformation of ‘middle’ India, based on multiple rounds of field surveys in Arni, Harriss-White (2016b, p. 20) points out the significance of ‘social regulation such as caste, religion and gender that are able to support the process of accumulation’.
- 7.
The neo-liberal city is a manifestation of the central social contradiction of contemporary global capitalism, that is, ‘increased return from global connectedness accompanied by hyper-commodification of land and new forms of social marginalisation, most notably the increasing informality of labour and life’, a process by which the migrants, mostly coming from the rural areas, remain deeply affected (Samaddar 2016).
- 8.
- 9.
Joshi (1974) draws a distinction between the ideology of land reform, which was generally anti-landlord, and claimed to represent the general interests of the peasantry and the programme of land reforms that was to serve the interests of the superior tenants and under proprietors rather than the interests of the rural poor.
Linking the outcomes of the land reforms policy to the form and the context of the post-colonial Indian state, Raju J. Das argues that ‘[i]ts democratic form and the class alignment in the society formed the context of the policy and set some limit within which it had to act when carrying out that policy’ (Das 1999, p. 2120).
- 10.
Jayati Ghosh has summarised the impacts of the failure of (or the limited nature of) land reforms succinctly. ‘The absence of any radical land redistribution across most of the country meant that the domestic market, especially for manufactured goods, remained socially narrowly based. It also meant that the growth of agricultural output in the aggregate, though far greater than in the colonial period, remained well below its potential. Such growth as did occur was largely confined to a relatively narrow stratum of landlords-turned-capitalists and sections of rich peasants who had improved their economic status. And the large mass of peasantry, faced with insecure conditions of tenure and often obtaining a small share in the outputs they produced, had neither the means nor the incentive to invest. The prospect of increasing productivity and incomes in rural India (which was home to the majority of its population) in order to stimulate domestic demand was therefore restricted’ (Ghosh 2004, p. 295).
- 11.
The substantial price support for farm products, and provision of subsidised inputs and institutional credit under the green revolution strategy, was largely ensured state support for the rich peasants (Bardhan 1994, p. 46)
- 12.
As pointed out by V K Ramachandran (2011, p. 670), ‘land reform is by its very nature a non-market intervention, undertaken by governments and people because markets cannot deliver that redistribution of land and assets that is essential for progressive social change. “Market-based land reform” is thus a contradiction in terms, and a cover-up for the abandonment of genuine land reform’.
- 13.
In 2014, India’s Planning Commission was scrapped and was replaced by NITI (National Institute for Transforming India) Aayog, a think tank.
- 14.
Fernandes (2004) estimated that during 1947–2000, the total number of persons directly displaced by land acquisition Displaced Persons (DPs) and persons who lost their livelihoods without moving away from their habitat Project Affected Persons (PAPs) was probably around 50 million. The tribal communities were disproportionately affected by land acquisitions.
- 15.
An analytical distinction has been made in the literature between crisis of the agriculture sector, which most visibly manifests itself through decelerations in the growth of productivity, and a larger agrarian and rural crisis that creates conditions of distress for a large section of the rural population (Radhakrishna 2007; Reddy and Mishra 2009a).
- 16.
However, farmer suicides are an extreme manifestation of the agrarian crisis. Even in the absence of farmer suicides, there are other signs of rural distress, such as mass out-migration of labour households under various forms of unfreedom. Ranjana Padhi, in her study on the women survivors, draws attention to the gender implications of suicides and also to the multiple forms of the exclusion and deprivation that the survivors face (Padhi 2012).
- 17.
For a detailed analysis of the implications of the ‘Gujarat Model of Development’, see Sood (2012).
References
Adnan, S. (2015). Primitive Accumulation and the “Transition to Capitalism” in Neoliberal India. In B. Harriss-White & J. Heyer (Eds.), Indian Capitalism in Development (pp. 23–45). London: Routledge.
Adnan, S. (2017). Land Grabs, Primitive Accumulation and Resistance in Neoliberal India: Persistence of the Self-Employed and Divergence from the ‘Transition to Capitalism’? In A. P. D’Costa & A. Chakraborty (Eds.), The Land Question in India: State, Dispossession, and Capitalist Transition (pp. 76–100). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Agarwal, B. (1994). A Field of One’s Own: Gender and Land Rights in South Asia. New Delhi: Cambridge University Press.
Akram-Lodhi, A. H. (2007). Land, Markets and Neoliberal Enclosure: An Agrarian Political Economy Perspective. Third World Quarterly, 28(8), 1437–1456.
Akram-Lodhi, A. H., & Kay, C. (2010). Surveying the Agrarian Question (Part 1): Unearthing Foundations, Exploring Diversity. Journal of Peasant Studies, 37(1), 177–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150903498838.
Assadi, M. (2006). Agrarian Crisis and Farmers’ Suicide in India: Dimension, Nature and Response of the State in Karnataka. Indian Journal of Labour Economics, 49(4), 791–811.
Ballantyne, B., Bristow, M., Davison, B., Harrington, S., & Khan, K. (2000). How Can Land Tenure and Cadastral Reform Succeed? An Inter-Regional Comparison of Rural Reforms. Canadian Journal of Development Studies/Revue Canadienne d’études Du Développement, 21(3), 693–723.
Banerjee-Guha, S. (2009). Neoliberalising the ‘Urban’: New Geographies of Power and Injustice in Indian Cities. Economic and Political Weekly, 44(22), 95–107.
Banerjee-Guha, S. (2013). Accumulation and Dispossession: Contradictions of Growth and Development in Contemporary India. South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies, 36(2), 165–179.
Bardhan, P. (1994). The Political Economy of Development in India (Paperb). New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Basole, A., & Basu, D. (2011). Relations of Production and Modes of Surplus Extraction in India: Part I-Agriculture. Economic and Political Weekly, 46(14), 41–58.
Basu, D. (2019). Capital, Non-Capital and Transformative Politics in Contemporary India. UMass Amherst Economics Working Papers No. 259.
Bernstein, H. (2006). Is There an Agrarian Question in the 21st Century? Canadian Journal of Development Studies/Revue Canadienne d’études Du Développement, 27(4), 449–460.
Bhaduri, A. (2017). A Study in Development by Dispossession. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 42(1), 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bex026.
Bhalla, G. S., & Singh, G. (2009). Economic Liberalisation and Indian Agriculture: A Statewise Analysis. Economic and Political Weekly, 54(52), 34–44.
Borras, S. M., Jr., & Franco, J. C. (2012). Global Land Grabbing and Trajectories of Agrarian Change: A Preliminary Analysis. Journal of Agrarian Change, 12(1), 34–59.
Brass, T. (2011). Labour Regime Change in the Twenty-First Century: Unfreedom, Capitalism and Primitive Accumulation. London: Brill.
Byres, T. J. (2005). Neoliberalism and Primitive Accumulation in Less Developed Countries. In A. Saad-Filho & D. Johnston (Eds.), Neoliberalism: A Critical Reader (pp. 83–90). London: Pluto Press.
Cahill, D. (2012). The Embedded Neoliberal Economy. In D. Cahill, L. Edwards, & F. Stilwell (Eds.), Neoliberalism: Beyond the Free Market (pp. 110–127). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Chakravorty, S. (2016). Land Acquisition in India: The Political-Economy of Changing the Law. Area Development and Policy, 1(1), 48–62.
Chandrasekhar, C. P. (2012). From Dirigisme to Neoliberalism: Aspects of the Political Economy of the Transition in India. In C. Kyung-Sup, B. Fine, & L. Weiss (Eds.), Developmental Politics in Transition (pp. 140–165). London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137028303_8.
Chaterjee, P. (2017). Land and the Political Management of Primitive Accumulation. In A. D’costa & A. Chakraborty (Eds.), The Land Question in India: State, Dispossession, and Capitalist Transition (pp. 1–15). New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Chatterjee, P. (2008). Democracy and Economic Transformation in India. Economic & Political Weekly, 43(16), 53–62.
Chatterjee, P. (2017). Prelude: Land and the Political Management of Primitive Accumulation. In A. P. D’costa & A. Chakraborty (Eds.), The Land Question in India: State, Dispossession and Capitalist Transition (pp. 1–15). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Das, R. J. (1999). The Spatiality of Class and State Power: The Case of India’s Land Reforms. Environment and Planning A, 31(12), 2103–2126.
Das, Raju (2013, Oct 01) Agrarian Crisis as the Crisis of Small Property Ownership in Globalizing Capitalism. Monthly Review Online. Retrived from https://mronline.org/2013/10/01/das011013-html/. Accessed 10 Mar 2020.
Das, R. J. (2015). Critical Observations on Neo-Liberalism and India’s New Economic Policy. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 45(4), 715–726.
Das, R. (2017). David Harvey’s Theory of Uneven Geographical Development: A Marxist Critique. Capital & Class, 41(3), 511–536.
Deere, C. D., & Leon, M. (2001). Institutional Reform of Agriculture under Neoliberalism: The Impact of the Women’s and Indigenous Movements. Latin American Research Review, 36(2), 31–64.
Deinlnger, K., & Binswanger, H. (1999). The Evolution of the World Bank’s Land Policy: Principles, Experience, and Future Challenges. The World Bank Research Observer, 14(2), 247–276.
Deshpande, R. S., & Arora, S. (2010). Agrarian Crisis and Farmer Suicides. New Delhi: SAGE.
Edelman, M. (2013). Messy Hectares: Questions About the Epistemology of Land Grabbing Data. Journal of Peasant Studies, 40(3), 485–501.
Edelman, M., & León, A. (2013). Cycles of Land Grabbing in Central America: An Argument for History and a Case Study in the Bajo Aguán, Honduras. Third World Quarterly, 34(9), 1697–1722.
Editors Agrarian South. (2012). The Agrarian Question: Past, Present and Future. Agrarian South: Journal of Political Economy, 1(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/227797601200100101.
Feder, G., & Feeny, D. (1991). Land Tenure and Property Rights: Theory and Implications for Development Policy. The World Bank Economic Review, 5(1), 135–153.
Feder, G., & Nishio, A. (1998). The Benefits of Land Registration and Titling: Economic and Social Perspectives. Land Use Policy, 15(1), 25–43.
Fernandes, W. (2004). Rehabilitation Policy for the Displaced. Economic and Political Weekly, 39(12), 1191–1192.
Fernandes, W. (2008). Sixty Years of Development-Induced Displacement in India. In Council for Social Development (Ed.), India Social Development Report (pp. 89–102). New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Ghatak, M. (2007). Land Reforms. In K. Basu & A. Maertens (Eds.), Oxford Companion to Economics in India (Vol. II, pp. 442–446). New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Ghosh, J. (2004). Social Policy in Indian Development. In M. Thandika (Ed.), Social Policy in a Development Context (pp. 284–307). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ghosh, J. (2011). Growth with Exclusion: The Indian Economy in the Phase of Globalization. In S. Moosvi (Ed.), Capitalism, Colonialism and Globalization (pp. 126–162). New Delhi: Tulika Books.
Ghosh, M. (2012). Regional Economic Growth and Inequality in India During the Pre-and Post-Reform Periods. Oxford Development Studies, 40(2), 190–212.
Glassman, J. (2006). Primitive Accumulation, Accumulation by Dispossession, Accumulation by ‘Extra-Economic’ Means. Progress in Human Geography, 30(5), 608–625.
Gould, K. A., Carter, D. R., & Shrestha, R. K. (2006). Extra-Legal Land Market Dynamics on a Guatemalan Agricultural Frontier: Implications for Neoliberal Land Policies. Land Use Policy, 23(4), 408–420.
Government of India. (2017). Economic Survey 2016–17. New Delhi: Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, Government of India.
Hall, D. (2013). Primitive Accumulation, Accumulation by Dispossession and the Global Land Grab. Third World Quarterly, 34(9), 1582–1604.
Harriss-White, B. (2004). India’s Socially Regulated Economy. Indian Journal of Labour Economics, 47(1), 49–68.
Harriss-White, B. (2016a). From Analysing ‘Filières Vivrieres’ to Understanding Capital and Petty Production in Rural South India. Journal of Agrarian Change, 16(3), 478–500. https://doi.org/10.1111/joac.12178.
Harriss-White, B. (2016b). Introduction: The Economic Dynamism of Middle India. In B. Harriss-White (Ed.), Middle India and Urban-Rural Development: Four Decades of Change (pp. 1–27). New Delhi: Springer.
Harriss-White, B., Mishra, D. K., & Upadhyay, V. (2009). Institutional Diversity and Capitalist Transition: The Political Economy of Agrarian Change in Arunachal Pradesh, India. Journal of Agrarian Change, 9(4), 512–547.
Harvey, D. (2003). The New Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Harvey, D. (2005). A Brief History of Neoliberalism. New York: Oxford University Press.
Harvey, D. (2010). The Right to the City: From Capital Surplus to Accumulation by Dispossession. In S. Banerjee-Guha (Ed.), Accumulation by Dispossession: Transformative Cities in the New Global Order (pp. 17–32). New Delhi: Sage.
Hirashima, S., Oda, H., & Tsujita, Y. (2011). Inclusiveness in India. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Holden, S. T., & Ghebru, H. (2016). Land Tenure Reforms, Tenure Security and Food Security in Poor Agrarian Economies: Causal Linkages and Research Gaps. Global Food Security, 10, 21–28.
Jansen, K., & Roquas, E. (1998). Modernizing Insecurity: The Land Titling Project in Honduras. Development and Change, 29(1), 81–106.
Jodhka, S. S. (2018). Rural Change in Times of ‘Distress’. Economic and Political Weekly, 53(26–27), 5–7.
Joshi, P. C. (1974). Land Reform and Agrarian Change in India and Pakistan Since 1947: 1. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 1(2), 164–185.
Kaag, M., & Zoomers, A. (2014). The Global Land Grab: Beyond the Hype. London: Zed Books.
Kabeer, N. (1994). Reversed Realities: Gender Hierarchies in Development Thought. London: Verso.
Kar, S., & Sakthivel, S. (2007). Reforms and Regional Inequality in India. Economic and Political Weekly, 42(47), 69–77.
Keshri, K., & Bhagat, R. B. (2012). Temporary and Seasonal Migration: Regional Pattern, Characteristics and Associated Factors. Economic and Political Weekly, 47(4), 81–88.
Kumar, K., & Kerr, J. M. (2012). Democratic Assertions: The Making of India’s Recognition of Forest Rights Act. Development and Change, 43(3), 751–771.
Kumar, K., Singh, N. M., & Rao, Y. G. (2017). Promise and Performance of the Forest Rights Act. Economic & Political Weekly, 52(25–26), 40–43.
Lerche, J. (2011). Agrarian Crisis and Agrarian Questions in India. Journal of Agrarian Change, 11(1), 104–118. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0366.2010.00295.x.
Lerche, J. (2013). The Agrarian Question in Neoliberal India: Agrarian Transition Bypassed? Journal of Agrarian Change, 13(3), 382–404. https://doi.org/10.1111/joac.12026.
Lerche, J., Shah, A., & Harriss-White, B. (2013). Introduction: Agrarian Questions and Left Politics in India. Journal of Agrarian Change, 13(3), 337–350.
Levien, M. (2013a). Regimes of Dispossession: From Steel Towns to Special Economic Zones. Development and Change, 44(2), 381–407.
Levien, M. (2013b). The Politics of Dispossession: Theorizing India’s “Land Wars.” Politics & Society, 41(3), 351–394.
Levien, M. (2017). From Primitive Accumulation to Regimes of Dispossession: Theses on India’s Land Question. In A. P. D’costa & A. Chakraborty (Eds.), The Land Question in India: State, Dispossession and Capitalist Transition (pp. 49–75). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Marx, K. (1976). Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume I (1990th ed.). London: Penguin.
Mirowski, P. (2013). Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste: How Neoliberalism Survived the Financial Meltdown. London: Verso Books.
Mishra, D. K. (2008). Structural Inequalities and Interlinked Transactions in Agrarian Markets: Results of a Field Survey. In S. K. Bhaumik (Ed.), Reforming Indian Agriculture: Towards Employment Generation and Poverty Reduction (pp. 231–268). New Delhi: SAGE.
Mishra, S. (2008). Risks, Farmers’ Suicides and Agrarian Crisis in India: Is There a Way Out? Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 63(1), 38–54.
Mishra, D. K. (2011). Behind Dispossession: State, Land Grabbing and Agrarian Change in Rural Orissa. Retrieved August 23, 2015, from https://www.future-agricultures.org/news/behind-dispossession-state-land-grabbing-and-agrarian-change-in-rural-orissa/
Mishra, S. (2014). Farmers’ Suicides in India, 1995–2012: Measurement and Interpretation. Asia Research Centre Working Paper No. 62. London.
Mishra, D. K. (Ed.). (2016a). Internal Migration in Contemporary India. New Delhi: SAGE.
Mishra, D. K. (2016b). Seasonal Migration from Odisha: A Field View. In D. K. Mishra (Ed.), Internal Migration in Contemporary India (pp. 263–290). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Mishra, D. K. (2018a). Book Review: Globalisation and the Land Question. Journal of Asian and African Studies, 54(2), 300–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021909618800852.
Mishra, D. K. (2018b). State, Community and the Agrarian Transition in Arunachal Pradesh. Economic and Political Weekly, 33(41), 64–70.
Mishra, D. K., & Harriss-White, B. (2015). Mapping Regions of Agrarian Capitalism in India. In E. Basile, B. Harriss-White, & C. Lutringer (Eds.), Mapping India’s Capitalism: Old and New Regions (pp. 9–41). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mishra, D. K., & Upadhyay, V. (2017). Locating North Eastern Region in a Globalising India. In D. K. Mishra & V. Upadhyaya (Eds.), Rethinking Economic Development in Northeast India: The Emerging Dynamics (pp. 1–18). London: Routledge.
Mitra, I. K., Samaddar, R., & Sen, S. (2017). Introduction: A Post-Colonial Critique of Capital Accumulation Today. In I. K. Mitra, R. Samaddar, & S. Sen (Eds.), Accumulation in Post-Colonial Capitalism (pp. 1–24). Singapore: Springer.
Mohanakumar, S., & Sharma, R. K. (2006). Analysis of Farmer Suicides in Kerala. Economic and Political Weekly, 41(16), 1553–1558.
Mohanty, A. (2011). Justice, Democracy & State in India: Reflections on Structure, Dynamics and Ambivalence. New Delhi: Routledge.
Mohanty, B. B. (2016). Critical Perspectives on Agrarian Transition: India in the Global Debate (B. B. Mohanty, Ed.). London: Routledge.
Mohanty, B. B., & Lenka, P. K. (2019). Small Farmers’ Suicide in Odisha. Economic & Political Weekly, 54(22), 51.
Mollett, S. (2016). The Power to Plunder: Rethinking Land Grabbing in Latin America. Antipode, 48(2), 412–432. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12190.
Nayak, P. K. (2015). The State and Land Records Modernization. New Delhi: Cambridge University Press.
Niti Aayog. (2016). Report of the Expert Committee on Land Leasing. New Delhi.
Oya, C. (2013). Methodological Reflections on ‘Land Grab’ Databases and the ‘Land Grab’ Literature ‘Rush’. Journal of Peasant Studies, 40(3), 503–520.
Padhi, R. (2012). Those Who Did Not Die: Impact of the Agrarian Crisis on Women in Punjab. New Delhi: Sage.
Patnaik, U. (2003). Global Capitalism, Deflation and Agrarian Crisis in Developing Countries. Journal of Agrarian Change, 3(1–2), 33–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0366.00050.
Patnaik, P. (2012). The Peasant Question and Contemporary Capitalism: Some Reflections with Reference to India. Agrarian South: Journal of Political Economy, 1(1), 27–42.
Payne, G., Durand-Lasserve, A., & Rakodi, C. (2009). The Limits of Land Titling and Home Ownership. Environment and Urbanization, 21(2), 443–462.
Peluso, N. L., & Lund, C. (2011). New Frontiers of Land Control: Introduction. Journal of Peasant Studies, 38(4), 667–681. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2011.607692.
Planning Commission. (1973). Report of the Task Force on Agrarian Relations. New Delhi.
Planning Commission. (2008). Development Challenges in Extremist Affected Areas: Report of an Expert Group to Planning Commission. New Delhi.
Radhakrishna, R. (2007). Report of the Expert Group on Agricultural Indebtedness. New Delhi.
Ramachandran, V. K. (1997). On Kerala’s Development Achievements. In J. Dreze & A. Sen (Eds.), Indian Development: Selected Regional Perspectives (pp. 205–356). New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Ramachandran, V. K. (2011). Classes and Class Differentiation in India’s Countryside. World Review of Political Economy, 2(4), 646–670.
Reddy, D. N., & Mishra, S. (2009a). Agrarian Crisis in India. Agrarian Crisis in India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Reddy, D. N., & Mishra, S. (2009b). Preface. In Agrarian Crisis in India (pp. xix–xxv). New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Roy, A. (2009). Why India Cannot Plan Its Cities: Informality, Insurgence and the Idiom of Urbanization. Planning Theory, 8(1), 76–87.
Rupakula, R. V. (2016). Class Differentiation and Crisis of Agrarian Petty Producers in India. World Review of Political Economy, 7(1), 85–105. https://doi.org/10.13169/worlrevipoliecon.7.1.0085.
Samaddar, R. (2016). Migrant and the Neo-Liberal City an Introduction. Economic and Political Weekly, 51(26–27), 52–54.
Sanyal, K. (2014). Rethinking Capitalist Development: Primitive Accumulation, Governmentality and Post-Colonial Capitalism. New Delhi: Routledge.
Sarap, K., Sarangi, T. K., & Naik, J. (2013). Implementation of Forest Rights Act 2006 in Odisha: Process, Constraints and Outcome. Economic and Political Weekly, 48(36), 61–67.
Sengupta, S., & Gazdar, H. (1996). Agrarian Politics and Rural Development in West Bengal. In J. Dreze & A. Sen (Eds.), Indian Development: Selected Regional Perspectives (pp. 129–204). New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Sharma, H. R. (1994). Distribution of Landholdings in Rural India, 1953–54 to 1981–82: Implications for Land Reforms. Economic and Political Weekly, 29(13), A12–A25.
Sharma, A. N. (2005). Agrarian Relations and Socio-Economic Change in Bihar. Economic and Political Weekly, 40(10), 960–972.
Singh, K., Singh, S., & Kingra, H. S. (2009). Agrarian Crisis and Depeasantisation in Punjab: Status of Small/Marginal Farmers Who Left Agriculture. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 64(4), 585.
Sonak, I. (2018, December). Legal Deceit. Down to Earth, 27, 31–40.
Sood, A. (Ed.). (2012). Poverty Amidst Prosperity: Essays on the Trajectory of Development in Gujarat. New Delhi: Aakar Books.
Springer, S., Birch, K., & MacLeavy, J. (2016). Handbook of Neoliberalism. New York: Routledge.
Sud, N. (2014). The State in the Era of India’s Sub-National Regions: Liberalization and Land in Gujarat. Geoforum, 51, 233–242.
Thorat, S., & Neuman, K. S. (2012). Blocked By Caste: Economic Discrimination in Modern India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Thorner, D., & Han-Seng, C. (1996). Ecological and Agrarian Regions of South Asia Circa 1930 (D. Thorner, Ed.). Karachi: Oxford University Press.
Vijay, R. (2012). Structural Retrogression and Rise of “New Landlords” in Indian Agriculture: An Empirical Exercise. Economic and Political Weekly, 47(5), 37–45.
White, B., Borras, S. M., Jr., Hall, R., Scoones, I., & Wolford, W. (2012). The New Enclosures: Critical Perspectives on Corporate Land Deals. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 39(3–4), 619–647. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2012.691879.
Wolford, W. (2007). Land Reform in the Time of Neoliberalism: A Many-Splendored Thing. Antipode, 39(3), 550–570.
Zoomers, A. (2010). Globalisation and the Foreignisation of Space: Seven Processes Driving the Current Global Land Grab. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 37(2), 429–447.
Zoomers, E. B. A., & Otsuki, K. (2017). Addressing the Impacts of Large-Scale Land Investments: Re-Engaging with Livelihood Research. Geoforum, 83, 164–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.01.009.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mishra, D.K., Nayak, P. (2020). Introduction: The Political Economy of Land and Livelihoods in Contemporary India. In: Mishra, D., Nayak, P. (eds) Land and Livelihoods in Neoliberal India. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3511-6_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3511-6_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-15-3510-9
Online ISBN: 978-981-15-3511-6
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)