The beggar analogy

An interesting point was covered in the class today. Sir told us that he never gives money to the beggars as it would demobilise all the beggars and they would not form a cooperative (which he wants them to form).

In a similar way we can argue that welfare funds or the grants which are given by the state to promote development in the country will never serve its purpose as it would demobilise all the people involved in the said activity.

Also, evertime we help or train a person for an activity we are actually increasing his "loss" and so everyone should learn on his own. Or, we can also discuss that the class will never serve its purpose and there should be no kind of teaching or whatsoever!

Please comment on this paradox.

Everyday forms of struggle in today's context

James C. Scott talks about everyday form of resistance at the individual level and the sum total of these actions leading to a massive change in the system. He supports such actions in those situations where outright defiance may either not lead to any revolution or such an action may be foolhardy. He says that such actions may require little action or co-ordination. As we discussed in yesterday’s class that informal rules have the potential to bring about changes in formal rules, in the same manner small acts of defiance on the part of individuals have the capability to bring about changes in the policies being implemented to subordinate the weak. Although Scott argues that these covert and subtle forms of resistance are more effective than direct confrontations, I would like to know whether this is actually true in today’s context. Don’t you think that in this age of mass media and communication, direct and visible forms of collective actions tend to be more visible and hence are more likely to garner public support than Scott’s everyday form of resistances?

Is Popkin again proved right???

Regarding today's class, the failure of Bulgaria's collective irrigation programme is a failure of another collective action.

Did not it lay out well defined rules for CPR which is necessary according to Ostrom Institutional theory??...Ostrom opined that self-governance and self-organization are the two main components for any collective group action. But the irrigation system of Bulgaria had all these things, but still it failed to attain its objectives. It is said that it was due to power dynamics, assymetric power distribution and as a result of which people who held the power defined  the formal rules according to their own to reap maximum benefit out of it.

Is not it we are again saying that it is all about self-interest which drives people, which Popkin described in defining peasantry using political approach. Whereever the collective action is happening it is also because of self-interest which sometimes becomes rational.

So ultimately everybody is carried by self-interest........Is not it?? Don't you think that Samuel Popkin was very much pragmatic???

Is Popkin again proved right???

Logic behind market price

A question always comes to our mind that how prices are decided in the market place. A buyer goes to the motive with the objective of getting product at lower cost where as a seller comes to the market with the objective of earning maximum profit. But as a seller, cannot charge higher price in a competitive market according to his whims and wishes. He has to take into account other player selling the similar product in the market as any one sided increase in the price can lead to loss of market share. At the same time a buyer cannot demand a product at cost lower than its manufacturing expenses. So over a period of time, equilibrium is reached where interest of both buyer and supplier is taken care.

To tackle the problem of low price these firms form a cartel where they fix the minimum price of at which a firm can sell the product in the market. Opposite happens in the sellers market where they decide the maximum price they are going to offer for a product. Some where down the line a equilibrium gets establish.

Women's movement for Environmental Cause: "Chipko Andolan"

The Chipko movement began in early 70's, among the people of the Uttarakhand, as an collective action to prevent the destruction of the natural habitat and thereby save the environment.The method employed by those participating in the movement to stop the felling of trees is to place themselves bodily between tree cutters and the trees-a tactic in the Gandhian tradition. This technique is known by the indigenous term chipko, meaning literally "to stick to" or "to hug," and usually translated as "hugging the trees".
The striking feature of this movement was that it had diversified support and a great social impact. It cut across social and cultural barriers that usually many politicians have attempted to exploit to fulfil their own ends. One major success factor of this forest struggle was the participation of women as they were the chief victims of the deforestation, having to travel over large distances for fuel and fodder as the trees vanished.The important factors, which led to large-scale participation of women in the areas according to my understanding are as follows:

· Because many men in hilly areas are away from their families and villages seeking employment in the plains women often remain responsible for their families and villages. These women have become accustomed to leadership in meeting the requirements for community survival.
· Even when men are present, it is the women who go to the forest to gather fuel wood or water they therefore feel most immediately and acutely the impact of the destruction of the forest. They are alert to the devastation of the environment and respond readily, knowledgeably, and confidently to the need to protect against it.
Thus I consider this movement a great accomplishment in post -Gandhian India where rural women united for a common and social cause for direct non-violent action.
Comments and other such examples are heartily welcomed.

A rational for India's growth despite…

This is based on a article in the newspaper in I recently happened to read and would like to discuss on this forum… it really generates an array of thoughts... at least to me !!!
This thought crosses my mind quite often that with regular terror attacks, poor infrastructure and relatively unstable political scenario, how India managed to be the 2nd fastest growing economy in the world (didn't we hear it quite often)... There even goes a common saying that “Our economy grows at night when the government is asleep." As if to illustrate this, the mumbai stock market rose in the period after the recent terrorist attacks. Markets were closed next day but re-opened on Nov 28 and defying speculation of fall, it actually closed 66 points higher. Also in recent elections, incumbents were ousted on the basis of economic issues, not security. The fastest growing country is China, understandably with its quite efficient state. Scores of other nations have same sort of economic reforms as India, so why is it that Indian economy has become world’s second best. Answer may lie in the much reviled caste system. Vaishyas, members of the merchant caste, who have learned over generations how to accumulate capital, give the nation a competitive advantage. Not surprisingly, Vaishyas still dominate the Forbes list of Indian billionaires. That explains in some way, while growth in China is much induced by an efficient state; in India’s case, it may well happen despite the state.

Welcoming your views on this...