Abstract
Despite public sector working conditions that are increasingly precarious, how does the state manage to attract and retain its workers? I draw on 14 months of ethnographic fieldwork with women community health workers in India, called ASHAs (Accredited Social Health Activists), who labor under precarious conditions as “remunerated volunteers” to connect the poor and marginalized to governmental health services. I find that the Indian state is the holder of what I call “promissory capital” for its workers. Women become ASHAs because they believe the role is, or will become, a sarkari naukri (government job). While this has not happened, the state keeps the promise alive through its plurality and potentiality, experienced in the everyday by ASHAs. By plurality, I mean the sense that the state is multivocal with various vertical and horizontal nodes that can be activated for one’s interests. By potentiality, I mean the sense of a state that cares and makes overtures to ASHAs in various forms, fueling the hope that it will eventually give them what they really want, that is, salaried and tenured employment. Together, plurality and potentiality shore up the state’s promissory capital. This highlights the mechanisms through which legitimacy is secured for agents in the state.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Dalits, or formerly “untouchable” castes, are recognized as historically oppressed and entitled to quotas in government education and employment, among other protections. The Indian constitution lists them as Scheduled Castes or SCs.
References
Abrams, Philip. 1988. Notes on the difficulty of studying the state. Journal of Historical Sociology 1 (1): 58–89.
Agarwala, Rina. 2008. Reshaping the social contract: Emerging relations between the state and informal labor in India. Theory and Society 37 (4): 375–408. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-008-9061-5.
Auyero, Javier. 2012. Patients of the state: The politics of waiting in Argentina. Durham: Duke University Press.
Bear, Laura, and Nayanika Mathur. 2015. Introduction: Remaking the public good: A new anthropology of bureaucracy. Cambridge Anthropology 33 (1): 18.
Bourdieu, Pierre, Loic J.D. Wacquant, and Samar Farage. 1994. Rethinking the state: Genesis and structure of the bureaucratic field. Sociological Theory 12 (1): 1–18. https://doi.org/10.2307/202032.
Budig, Michelle J., Melissa J. Hodges, and Paula England. 2019. Wages of Nurturant and reproductive care workers: Individual and job characteristics, occupational closure, and wage-equalizing institutions. Social Problems 66 (2): 294–319. https://doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spy007.
Census of India. District Census Handbook Muktsar 2011. Prepared by Directorate of Census Operations Punjab.
Chant, Sylvia and Caroline Sweetman. 2012. Fixing women or fixing the world? ‘Smart economics’, efficiency approaches, and gender equality in development. Gender & Development 20 (3): 517–529.
Chatterjee, Esha, Sonalde Desai, and Reeve Vanneman. 2018. Indian paradox: Rising education, declining womens’ employment. Demographic Research 38: 855–878.
Elcioglu, Emine Fidan. 2017. The state effect: Theorizing immigration politics in Arizona. Social Problems 64 (2): 239–255.
Evans, Peter. 1997. The eclipse of the state? Reflections on stateness in an era of globalization. World Politics 50 (1): 62–87.
Glenn, Evelyn Nakano. 2000. Creating a caring society. Cahiers du Genre 29 (1): 84–94. https://doi.org/10.3917/cdge.hs04.0199.
Gupta, Akhil. 2012. Red tape: Bureaucracy, structural violence, and poverty in India. Durham: Duke University Press.
Herzfeld, Michael. 1992. The social production of indifference: Exploring the symbolic roots of western bureaucracy. London: Routledge.
Hull, Matthew S. 2012. Government of paper: The materiality of bureaucracy in urban Pakistan. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Jauregui, Beatrice. 2013. Beatings, beacons, and big men: Police disempowerment and delegitimation in India. Law & Social Inquiry 38 (3): 643–669.
Jodhka, Surinder Singh. 2004. Sikhism and the caste question: Dalits and their politics in contemporary Punjab. Contribution to Indian Sociology 38 (1–2): 165–192.
Kok, Maryse C., Sumit S. Kane, Olivia Tulloch, Hermen Ormel, Sally Theobald, Marjolein Dieleman, Miriam Taegtmeyer, Jacqueline E.W. Broerse, and Korrie A.M. de Koning. 2015. How does context influence performance of community health workers in low- and middle-income countries? Evidence from the literature. Health Research Policy and Systems 13 (1): 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-015-0001-3.
Li, Tania Murray. 1999. Compromising power: Development, culture, and rule in Indonesia. Cultural Anthropology 14 (3): 295–322.
Lipsky, Michael. 1980. Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Marx, Anthony W. 1998. Making race and nation: A comparison of South Africa, the United States, and Brazil. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mehrotra, Santosh, and Jajati K. Parida. 2017. Why is the labour force participation of women declining in India? World Development 98: 360–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.05.003.
Mitchell, Timothy. 1991. The limits of the state: Beyond statist approaches and their critics. The American Political Science Review 85 (1): 77–96.
Morgan, Kimberly J., and Ann Shola Orloff. 2017. The many hands of the state: Theorizing political authority and social control. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Razavi, Shahra, and Silke Staab. 2010. Underpaid and overworked: A cross-national perspective on care workers. International Labour Review 149 (4): 407–422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.05.003.
Sarkar, Sudipa, Soham Sahoo, and Stephan Klasen. 2019. Employment transitions of women in India: A panel analysis. World Development 115: 291–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.12.003.
Sayer, Derek. 1994. Some dissident remarks on “Hegemony”. In Everyday forms of state formation: Revolution and the negotiation of rule in modern Mexico, eds. Gilbert M. Joseph and Daniel Nugent, 367–377. Durham: Duke University Press.
Scott, Kerry, Asha S. George, and Rajani R. Ved. 2019. Taking stock of 10 years of published research on the ASHA Programme. Health Research Policy and Systems 17: 29.
Sharma, Aradhana. 2008. Logics of empowerment: Development, gender, and governance in neoliberal India. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Gupta Akhil and Aradhana Sharma. 2006. The anthropology of the state: A reader. Malden: Blackwell Pub.
Skocpol, Theda. 1985. Bringing the state back in: Strategies of analysis in current research. In Bringing the state back, eds. Peter Evans, Dietrich Rueschemeyer, and Theda Skocpol. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Steinmetz, George. 1999. State/culture: State-formation after the cultural turn. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Swaminathan, Padmini. 2015. The formal creation of informality, and therefore, gender injustice: Illustrations from India’s social sector. Indian Journal of Labour Economics 58: 23–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41027-015-0006-z.
Tilly, Charles. 1992. Coercion, capital, and European states, AD 990-1992. Cambridge: Blackwell.
Ved, Rajani, Kerry Scott, Garima Gupta, Osama Ummer, Swaran Singh, Anuj Srivastava, and Asha S. George. 2019. How are gender inequalities facing India’s one million ASHAs being addressed? Human Resources for Health 17 (1): 3.
Wacquant, Loïc J.D. 2009. Punishing the poor: The neoliberal government of social insecurity. Durham: Duke University Press.
Watkins-Hayes, Celeste. 2009. The new welfare bureaucrats: Entanglements of race, class, and policy reform. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Weber, Max, Hans Heinrich Gerth, and C. Wright Mills. 1946. From max Weber: Essays in sociology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Williams, Raymond. 1977. Marxism and literature. London: Oxford University Press.
Zussman, Robert. 2004. People in places. Qualitative Sociology 27 (4): 351–363.
Acknowledgements
I thank the special issue editors, Sneha Annavarapu and Zachary Levenson, as well as Sharmila Rudrappa, Javier Auyero, Kriti Budhiraja, Alejandro Marquez, and Inbar Weiss for comments on earlier drafts of this paper.
Funding
This research is supported by the National Science Foundation, the American Council of Learned Societies, the International Journal for Urban and Regional Research, and PEO International.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Marwah, V. Promissory Capital: State Legitimacy among Women Community Health Workers in India. Qual Sociol 44, 403–418 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-021-09487-y
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-021-09487-y