Dr. Md. Shairul Mashreque :
Political economy addresses the key issues and challenges in the wake of policy intervention with emphasis on distribution of income, wealth, strategic power centers and participation. In fact the dynamics of public policy has to be understood in the backdrop of structural realities and institutional condition of life. That policy outcomes favor influential interest groups are hardly amazing. This is true in Asian context where a powerful few have taken over benefits of development. Even participation-oriented public policy has given rise to unexpected and paradoxical realizations. The outcomes of specific policies of income redistribution hardly favor the target groups.
The economy, social fabric and various forms of power relations have much to be reckoned with in understanding policy directions in critical issues of development. Of course, apparent paradoxes of development policies necessitate proper assessment and evaluation of policy analysts who display keen interests in the study of society and economy.
In a traditional society community organization is a strong functional entity regulating diverse social activities. In most cases pre existing social values shaping policy clusters frustrate attempts at reformation through remarkable policy shift as per demand of time and assessed needs. Social elites relish conservative orientation to life exercising social control with a cluster of preexisting customs in defense of their vested interests.
This under current societal process operates to marginalise the ‘have-nots’ pushing them into perennial subjugation. Material conditions of life revolving around production relations generate unfavorable economic situation on the part of the ordinary masses. In elite mass dichotomy the elite as the landlords, industrialists, traders and entrepreneurs is the central stage of policy making. The masses in center periphery cycle ‘remain in the periphery.’ At the community level rural, urban and national, center periphery circle determines transactional aspect of super ordination and subordination. The mariginalised and the poor trapped by exploitation in many fold transactions are in ‘fragile locus’. In rural areas land is the principal source of economic activities. Agriculture including the subsidiary occupation constitutes the mainstreams of economic life. Tenural arrangement, fragmentation and subdivision of holdings, mass ignorance about land tax and land registration account much for the deprivation of the poor class; they are losing land. Many forms of trickery and fraudulence, lending system, share cropping and mortgaging are instruments of economic exploitation.
Opportunities for investment in non-traditional areas of economy have appeared thanks to capitalistic penetration in rural and per-urban communities. With the change of socio- economic scenario the upstarts and emerging tycoons with lumpen character are beginning to reign supreme in both rural and metropolitan communities. Intermediary roles played by rising brokers and emerging social Brahmins having proximity to policy communities at the national level trigger ‘vicious deprivation trap’. Robert Chamber has depicted integrated poverty that includes the indices like poverty, physical weakness, isolation, vulnerability and powerlessness. He seems to schematically project economic situation in developing countries. Mentionable that the total civilian labor forces engaged in agriculture, industry and tertiary sectors have to face ‘integral’ economic problems. The economic base of productive force continues to be weak and fragile.
Conflicts among competing groups serve to ‘reinforce norms’. Policy decisions are arrived at by consensus among such groups. State nourishes competition within the existing framework of society on the basis of consensus on abiding norms and standards. Public policy serves as a balancing contrivance to accommodate diverse interests and claims. Even then development policies continue to be the preferences of dominant political groups. Conflict as a ‘compendium concept’ confuses the conflict of interests between those dominating the state apparatus and a large section of the masses in both traditional and transitional social settings. Basic inadequacy of this conceptual scheme is thus recognized leading us to take recourse to Marxism and neo-Marxism for meaningful explanation of the nature of the state. Policy implications of multidimensional development reinforce the instruments of exploitation thus giving rise to the concept of class struggle. The picture of domination thus reveals wider network of exploitative relationship hovering around production, market mechanism, distribution and exchange. Hence, conflict notion of the state is seriously weakened in favour of class struggle. The interplay of forces differentiated along class lines is thus the focus of Marxian doctrine of class struggle. Neo-Marxists endeavor to carry forward such doctrine with new parameters of domination emphasizing state market interface in the context of global capitalism.
However, no policy exercise will progress beyond rhetoric until and unless the context of propositions and observations derived from substantive heuristic studies of social formation are examined in real life operations. Society – economy approach with differing methodological perspectives represents paths to development of objective orientation to the policy studies. .
Nevertheless, views gleaned from diverse value perspectives of society– economy serve to provide guidance to the rational choice of priorities and allocation of resources. It guides the specialists or professionals to think in terms of a realistic prospect of policy development in each policy sector for optimal utilization of public resources.
(Dr. Md. Shairul Mashreque is a Professor (RTD), Chittagong University).
Political economy addresses the key issues and challenges in the wake of policy intervention with emphasis on distribution of income, wealth, strategic power centers and participation. In fact the dynamics of public policy has to be understood in the backdrop of structural realities and institutional condition of life. That policy outcomes favor influential interest groups are hardly amazing. This is true in Asian context where a powerful few have taken over benefits of development. Even participation-oriented public policy has given rise to unexpected and paradoxical realizations. The outcomes of specific policies of income redistribution hardly favor the target groups.
The economy, social fabric and various forms of power relations have much to be reckoned with in understanding policy directions in critical issues of development. Of course, apparent paradoxes of development policies necessitate proper assessment and evaluation of policy analysts who display keen interests in the study of society and economy.
In a traditional society community organization is a strong functional entity regulating diverse social activities. In most cases pre existing social values shaping policy clusters frustrate attempts at reformation through remarkable policy shift as per demand of time and assessed needs. Social elites relish conservative orientation to life exercising social control with a cluster of preexisting customs in defense of their vested interests.
This under current societal process operates to marginalise the ‘have-nots’ pushing them into perennial subjugation. Material conditions of life revolving around production relations generate unfavorable economic situation on the part of the ordinary masses. In elite mass dichotomy the elite as the landlords, industrialists, traders and entrepreneurs is the central stage of policy making. The masses in center periphery cycle ‘remain in the periphery.’ At the community level rural, urban and national, center periphery circle determines transactional aspect of super ordination and subordination. The mariginalised and the poor trapped by exploitation in many fold transactions are in ‘fragile locus’. In rural areas land is the principal source of economic activities. Agriculture including the subsidiary occupation constitutes the mainstreams of economic life. Tenural arrangement, fragmentation and subdivision of holdings, mass ignorance about land tax and land registration account much for the deprivation of the poor class; they are losing land. Many forms of trickery and fraudulence, lending system, share cropping and mortgaging are instruments of economic exploitation.
Opportunities for investment in non-traditional areas of economy have appeared thanks to capitalistic penetration in rural and per-urban communities. With the change of socio- economic scenario the upstarts and emerging tycoons with lumpen character are beginning to reign supreme in both rural and metropolitan communities. Intermediary roles played by rising brokers and emerging social Brahmins having proximity to policy communities at the national level trigger ‘vicious deprivation trap’. Robert Chamber has depicted integrated poverty that includes the indices like poverty, physical weakness, isolation, vulnerability and powerlessness. He seems to schematically project economic situation in developing countries. Mentionable that the total civilian labor forces engaged in agriculture, industry and tertiary sectors have to face ‘integral’ economic problems. The economic base of productive force continues to be weak and fragile.
Conflicts among competing groups serve to ‘reinforce norms’. Policy decisions are arrived at by consensus among such groups. State nourishes competition within the existing framework of society on the basis of consensus on abiding norms and standards. Public policy serves as a balancing contrivance to accommodate diverse interests and claims. Even then development policies continue to be the preferences of dominant political groups. Conflict as a ‘compendium concept’ confuses the conflict of interests between those dominating the state apparatus and a large section of the masses in both traditional and transitional social settings. Basic inadequacy of this conceptual scheme is thus recognized leading us to take recourse to Marxism and neo-Marxism for meaningful explanation of the nature of the state. Policy implications of multidimensional development reinforce the instruments of exploitation thus giving rise to the concept of class struggle. The picture of domination thus reveals wider network of exploitative relationship hovering around production, market mechanism, distribution and exchange. Hence, conflict notion of the state is seriously weakened in favour of class struggle. The interplay of forces differentiated along class lines is thus the focus of Marxian doctrine of class struggle. Neo-Marxists endeavor to carry forward such doctrine with new parameters of domination emphasizing state market interface in the context of global capitalism.
However, no policy exercise will progress beyond rhetoric until and unless the context of propositions and observations derived from substantive heuristic studies of social formation are examined in real life operations. Society – economy approach with differing methodological perspectives represents paths to development of objective orientation to the policy studies. .
Nevertheless, views gleaned from diverse value perspectives of society– economy serve to provide guidance to the rational choice of priorities and allocation of resources. It guides the specialists or professionals to think in terms of a realistic prospect of policy development in each policy sector for optimal utilization of public resources.
(Dr. Md. Shairul Mashreque is a Professor (RTD), Chittagong University).
