Del 2. Indian Economy: Is Semi-Feudal Semi-Colonial still relevant?

Mudunuri Bharathi & R.Vijay (under the guidance of R.S.Rao)

 (for part one click here)
 
 
2. Modelling Development as a Process of Social Transformation
2.1 Introduction
Development is the study of motion of a particular object, that is, how an object is transforming itself into a different object over a period of time. It can be seen as an internal process of transforming of an object. When we say an object is undergoing transformation, the earlier form of the object is abandoned, indicating displacement is concomitant with development and in fact they are the two sides of the same coin from which it follows that one without the other is only imaginary. Some physical indicators existing in reality are necessary to understand the level of development, particularly in case of the society, which is continuously undergoing changes. Developed countries having higher physical capital in terms of increased capital stocks, serve as one such indicator.
Similarly human capital measured in terms of better health and improved education is also taken as another set of indicators. Development in this frame where the less developed has to reach the levels of the more developed, is taken as a universal phenomenon. The poor countries follow a path to reach the levels of physical indicators achieved in developed countries.
Development as such becomes a technical solution, a solution which the developed countries can offer to the less developed. However, contrary evidences from countries that did not develop while following the above path, while countries choosing different routes seem to have developed, raising questions regarding the suitability and uniqueness of the proposed path for development. Observing such trends, Stiglitz, Chief Economist of the World Bank, remarked, “Development is possible but not inevitable” and as he says “Development is not just a matter of technical adjustments but transforming a society as a whole”.
In this section, an attempt is made to comprehend social transformation. Society, a group of individuals with certain relations, is viewed as a three dimensional entity, similar to an evolving matrix of three components. As it is evolving, society can be modeled as a fluid flux of social relations indicating that the relations among the individuals in the collective are changing. The object/society, rather the motion of the society depends on the lead component of change focusing on the character of the object/society it is proposed that each society can be differentiated based on its organisational principle, namely ‘scarcity’ of a productive resource, the three productive resources being labour, land and capital.
Thus the tradition/modern dichotomy, which is usually used in the literature on development where tradition gets further divided into labour scarce and land scarce, leaving the capital scarce system as a modern society. In Part 3, a notion ‘operator’ is introduced which is necessary to bring in the required transformation The operator acts on the lead component that is capable of bringing in a sequence of changes in the other components so that the organisation of the society gets transformed from one scarcity to another, indicating the development of the society.
To realise the transformation the operator must satisfy four conditions, namely, endogeneity, ownership, new leadership and change of scarcity. Part 4 illustrates the process of this transformation and the role of the operator in this by taking the example of two clusters, displaced from the same village but rehabilitated choosing different paths. Social transformation in one cluster is successful but failed in the other, indicating the operator is successful in bringing development in only one but not in the other.
2.2 Classification of Societies
 
2.2.1 The ‘social’ relating to society, namely the objective reality, can be seen as a group of individuals with certain relations among them, which can be modeled as a fluid flux of social relations in three mutually interdependent dimensions understood as productive force[P], property relations[R] and superstructure[S].
Accepting the Marxian axiom that nature/society were never in a state of equilibrium but are continuously changing, these changing social relations can be represented as a generative matrix with the three constituent components P, R and S in three different domains, their interaction with itself or with the component in the other domain generating motion in the society.’ If the interacting space is located within itself, it produces intra level motion and it can be represented as P.P and if the interacting space is across two levels it produces intra level motion represented as PxR.
Thus the total motion of the society which is endogenous in nature, can be seen as summation of partial motions, namely intra level motions P.P, R.R and S.S along with inter level motions PxR, RxS and SxP. Another important aspect to be remembered here is that various combinations of partial motions can produce the same totality in motion, such as 0+2, 1+1, 2+0 all produce the totality of motion that is only 2.
Hence one can imagine the possibility of various alternate sequencing of partial motions that can produce the same totality in motion for the society. Each sequence, where the number of partial motions are serially arranged gives rise to a specific possibility of obtaining a totality, or it represents a specific path/ trajectory of motion for the society, Broadly speaking, P component can have its own autonomous motion/ and this can initiate motion in the other levels also, it means that P component is taking the lead role which is followed by the other components, can be seen as classical model of motion/development.
An example of this type of sequencing in common experience can be that education is considered as panacea for all problems and hence it is believed that providing education to all people automatically solves all the problems in the society.
A second case may be that due to unavoidable reasons, at a particular space-timeframe, the motion in P is obstructed by R, forcing R to accept the lead role. For example, providing employment to all the people is accepted as panacea for all the ills in the society, which can solve all the problems.
In the third alternative, both the partial motions in P and R get stuck by the existing institutions in superstructure in a particular space-time context. In such a situation, S has to take the lead role, to be followed by the others. Teaching values such as national integration, moral behaviour etc. to the people with an objective of solving all the problems in the society provides an example of this case.
These three alternative possibilities are captured by Rao as a historical necessity in the evolution of capitalism that can be understood as three phases of capitalism during which the character of capital undergoes changes. Each sequence of motion gets a label depending on the lead component of the summation of various partial motions with different sequencing providing different paths of development for the society. The society, depending on the space-time context in which it is posited, inherits a particular sequence, which can be called the natural sequence of development for the society.
In general, the society’s motion can also be seen as movement from lower level of productive force to higher level of productive force with accompanying movement in the other two levels also. In this frame, the movement of society, in a long span of time, can be seen as movement through different phases and each phase is different from the other in terms of the three dimensions mentioned above.
In his ‘simplistic model’, Rao proposes that an ‘object’ in reality, namely the society, has
three dimensions and captures these three dimensions of the object as three different levels of abstractions, which are based on the specific spatial temporal characters about the object.

 

These are in fact the three sources, German philosophy, England’s political economy and French socialism, which according to Lenin, are also the component parts of Marxism. Thus philosophy, political economy and struggles for socialism are transferred on to the object as productive force P, property relations R and superstructure S. Alternately they describe the human being’s interactions with nature, other human being and society respectively. These three abstractions are such that they undergo intra as well as inter level changes indicating that these three levels are self- evolutionary. Hence one can propose that the motion of the objective reality/society exists in three sub sects of social relations, which are self- evolutionary. In case the object is human being, which is the micro foundational unit of society, one can also put forward that the dimensionality of the society can be transferred on to the individual in the society.
 In this frame, the human being in its interaction with nature acquires knowledge on nature which in turn transforms nature and it can be called productive force, Secondly its interaction with another individual, in order to pool the necessary resources and utilize the knowledge acquired in to production can be called property relations. Finally its interaction with the existing institutions its history and the social images existing in the collective guides the process of production can be seen as superstructure. These three dimensional activity of the society/individual provides intellectual, economic and social identities and their struggles to initiate changes in these components give a political identity to them.
In order to comprehend the ‘transformation’ of the society, number of researchers tried to classify societies into different categories. The commonly accepted classification is traditional society and modern society and the movement of it from one to the other is viewed as development.
The developed countries such as America view themselves as modern and the rest of the countries as traditional, thereby indicating that traditional societies can become modern by imitating the already developed countries. Here, development is equated with a technical solution and hence borrowing the existing suitable technology, already verified in practice, can be the desired solution for a traditional society to transform into a modern society.
Development becomes a universal law applicable everywhere and it then becomes just a matter of technical adjustments. Stiglitz enlarges the concept of development, especially relevant for the third world countries, puts forward an alternate paradigm that “Development is not just a matter of technical adjustments but represents a transformation of a society.” In his changed paradigm, it is a movement from traditional relations, traditional ways of thinking, traditional ways of dealing with health and education, traditional methods of production to more “modern” ways. To him, traditional societies accept that world as it is, but modern societies recognizes change, we as individuals in societies can take action that reduces infant mortality, extend life span and increased productivity. It is a movement to scientific ways of thinking.
The experience of the past fifty years with the development and the contemporary evidences, he came to the conclusion that “development is possible but not inevitable” which raised doubts regarding the universality of development. In order to clear the doubts he proposed a broader vision of development, an alternate paradigm which goes beyond the domains of economics, identifies the characteristics of new development strategies and locates the key for social transformation in terms of maintaining social order and enhancing social capital, coupled with consensus, cooperation and ownership of policies and institutions which can enhance the likelihood of success of various developmental strategies.
Marx classifies societies into primitive communism, slavery, feudalism, capitalism, socialism and finally to communism and movement from one to the other is seen as development/social transformation. This indicates that human organizations has discreetness in the form of their organization, each possessing internal homogeneity, constancy and a local stability and a being of an individual in a particular social organization determining the levels of consciousness.
 The present article develops an alternate way of classifying the society based on its organizing principle. This ontological axiom is located in terms of a notion ‘scarcity’ of a particular resource of production, scarce compared to the other resources at a given point of time. The scarcity of a particular resource implies that enhanced production is possible only through increasing this particular resource, which is perceived to be not available and the lack of it severely restriction the production.
As is accepted, the production is possible with the combination of resources namely land, labour and capital along with their organization together. It is possible to imagine situations where any one of the resources, labour, land and capital, in the form of knowledge and instruments, to be perceived by an individual to be scarce at any point of time. The necessary condition for a collective to be stable and homogenous, its members must have a same/similar object-space in the mental world as well as they should operate in the same/similar object-world of reality. In other words, the sense of scarcity of a particular resource will be similar, either actually or potentially. In such a situation of scarcity, in
order to reproduce the collective, certain institutional arrangements and norms get evolved to facilitate the day- to- day functioning of an individual in the collective, and the individual in a collective has to function in a context in which it resides.
This context with its specificities arising out of a particular scarcity can be visualized as an ontological frame, which conditions the epistemological norms of an individual which has to function in that collective. One can now classify societies, depending on the notion of scarcity, into labour scarce, land scarce and capital scarce societies and their linear movement from one to the other is commonly accepted as social transformation in which not only the organization of the collective changes but also the individual’s thought process also undergoes transformation.
A labour scarce system can be identified with the tribal communities that exist in nature abundant regions of the country. Here, the nature, including forests, land and water, is available in plenty and also freely accessible to these communities, due to which a human being in this context cannot perceive nature/ land as a scarce resource. Except in situations like state interventions such as forest acts, revenue settlements or industrialization that prohibit the use of nature, the idea of scarcity of land as a resource does not exist in the perception of these communities. Given the low level of knowledge on nature as well as instruments of labour, they can be produced by the individuals all by themselves without any specialization.
In such a labour scarce society, the centrality of the community rests with the labour bearing women and these societies functionally become women centric. All the families in the community perform same/similar activities. Here, acquisition of knowledge is based on perceptive sense experiences and the knowledge transmission, though acquired individually, is free without any costs. Low level of technology, high dependence on forests, shifting cultivation, minimum integration with the rest of the economy, consumption based production, low accumulation, low division of labour with the exception of natural division of labour associated with low specialization, women occupying the centre of economy, exchanges with other families through labour are some of the characteristics of a labour scarce economy.
When communities get settled in a geographic space and practice what is commonly known as settled agriculture to operate in a definite boundary, namely a village, individuals in the community now perceive that the land they can cultivate, unlike the earlier system where the land is abundant, is fixed and limited. They are forced to believe that additional land is not immediately available for enhancing the production, due to which the individuals in the community believe that the land is a scarce resource.
Though the distribution of the resources- land and labour-is not equal, one set of individuals who have labour perceive land as a scarce resource while another set of individuals have labour scarcity, but the latter idealises that land is the principle scarcity of the village. Since the individual is limited to land, s/he tries to get rational solutions to the nature related deviants/problems that arise, giving a scope for generation of rational knowledge, the transmission of which is intergenerational and almost free of cost across families with same scarcity and it becomes costly for a household with different scarcity. The knowledge acquired by the individual in the community does not become public or common knowledge across all households. Unlike labour scarce communities, the land scarce communities need much stricter do’s and don’ts and the closure of the community becomes an ideological closure.
This can be achieved by giving power to the land owning labour scarce households to propagate and idealise the land scarcity among all members of the collective. Land accumulation, bondedness, existence of agricultural labour in excess, share cropping, male superiority, non-separated households with interlinked consumption and production decisions, inactive markets for resources of production are some of the characteristics of a land scare system.
Human being’s understanding of nature, laws of nature/ society, utilization of the improved instruments in production all indicate that land as a resource in production is losing importance while capital is forging onto the centre stage of the system. While the instruments have enhanced the production capacity per unit labour as well as per unit land to such an extent that labour as well as land can be perceived as resources that are surplus.
Capital scarce system, like land scarce system, have segments of families with different sets of scarcities. The owners of land have either capital or labour scarcity while the owners of labour have scarcity of either capital or land. However, the community gets organized through a capital scarce logic. This idea of capital scarcity as a generalized idea gives power to the owners of capital to propagate capital scarcity ideologically. In the sphere of knowledge, accumulated knowledge on nature resides very specifically inside the divided segments, by which knowledge acquires the character of private knowledge, the transmission of which becoming costly. Further the source of thinking, namely practice and the actual thinking gets separated generating a divide between mental and manual labour, theoreticians and practitioners and even science and technology.
If social systems are classified into labour scarce, land scarce and capital scarce systems, their linear movement from one scarce system to the next scarce system can be seen as social transformation. They are viewed as discrete systems with a singularity, indicating that there are more than one ways through which transformation can materialize.
Focusing on the first transformation to take place, the necessary conditions to be satisfied are-
1. Scarcity of labour to be changed to excess labour
2. Abundance or plenty of land to be changed into scarcity of land.
To change the scarcity of the system, alternately to change the trajectory of its development
or its natural sequence of changes, an alternate sequence has to get imposed, either
externally or internally, on the society. That force which can perform this role can be
termed as an ‘operator’.
2.3. Role of an Operator in Transformation
Operator is that force which acts on an object/society in this context, to induce the required changes in it. It can have its source in the internal disequilibrium of the object in which case it can be an endogenous operator. Otherwise it can have its source external to the object and hence can be seen as exogenous operator. It can be termed a Newtonian operator, a pre-evaluated force, the action of which results in anticipated consequence, similar to a guided missile while the internal operator can be termed an Einsteinian operator bringing in changes as is essential. Former operator restricts itself to generating only a specified motion while the latter initiates motion that will continue by which motion gets endogenised. An operator, whether it is external or internal, has to act on society and influence it to change its trajectory.
Since the motion of the society can be observed through the three dimensions P, Rand S, one
can imagine an operator that can act on P level to induce changes in this domain of knowledge. For example, providing free and compulsory education to all children, adult education, opening I.I.Ts, national laboratories and research institutions, teaching through electronic media belong to this category. An operator that acts at R level has to result in changes in the resource allocation. As an example, giving land to the poor, providing jobs, encouraging savings, constructing heavy industries big dams and factories, investment in infrastructure, subsidies etc. come in this category. An operator can also act at S level to
induce changes in its institutions. Elections, parliamentary democracy, fundamental rights, reservations, changes in policies in media, newspapers, family norms, fashion shows, courts, law, policies relating to legal and judiciary functioning belong to this category.
The operator can be either exogenous or endogenous but when it acts on the society, it locates itself external to the object but it is not to be seen as exogenously generated. A transformational operator is one which, acting in one dimension can produce a change in that domain and this change in turn has a cascading effect and generates sequential changes in the other dimensions. This is possible only when the operator is selectedin such a way that it acts on the lead component that has the necessary linkages with the other components. In such a case, the sequence along with the trajectory changes, indicating that the society is undergoing transformation, or the scarcity of the society is changing.
One can represent the three scarce societies as follows
– to offer compensation for the loss of productive assets, namely, land, house, and fruit bearing trees etc. in terms of money. It defined the unit `family’ clearly and in the process male member was brought to the forefront in the social relations and bestowed the status of the “head of household” to the male member.
Thus he became the legal owner of the property acquired with the compensation money, as compensation money was deposited in his account in the bank and women became the major losers, who lost not only their access to various resources but also their power of decision making along with their status. This can be visualised as a crucial step through which state, unintentionally, introduced patriarchy into a society where it is present only in a nebulous form.
By the time, the family settled in RR colony, patriarchy could develop firm roots and in the whole process family got crystallised as a basic independent unit with male as the head of the household and women lost their separate identity and became dependent members in the family. Further, collective lifestyles of women changed into private individual life styles.
With an objective of rehabilitating and resettling the families in a new surrounding and recreating social relations without much deterioration, government initially planned to give 5 acres of unirrigated land or 2.5 acres of irrigated land to each family, irrespective of whether they had land earlier or otherwise. Gradually the rehabilitation assistance acquired money form and finally it was settled at Rs 9000/- for constructing the house in the place of their choice and an amount of Rs 20,975/- for purpose of purchasing agricultural lands. All the money was deposited in the account of the head of the household. This step further divided the hitherto well-knit community into individual separate independent families, trying to establish on their own.
First, a look at the state constructed RR colonies. Sasahandi colony was rejected in the initial phase itself giving the reason that not even a blade of grass can grow there, indicating an anticipated drought situation. In Mundighati colony, initially Gouda and scheduled caste families settled here but over time it gradually disintegrated, the reasons were not explicitly specified. Some of the families from this colony are presently attempting to create a new cluster, Dhrua Padar, in the same neighbourhood and the process of its transformation is still in progress.
The dam construction and the consequent submergence of the villages in the labour scarce society has sent shock waves and the people ran helter-skelter in any direction possible. The various alternatives followed by the affected people are as follows:
1)      Some of the families migrated out as single independent families to a place of their choice and nobody had the information about their place of settlement or their level of integration in the new economy.
2)      Some of the families migrated out in small groups of three or four families together to a location where they have friends or relatives. They attach themselves to this new  location and become an appendage to this already existing settled village.
3)       Sometimes ten or more families migrated out to a new place and attach themselves to a settled village forming an appendage cluster
4)       They also migrated to a new place in large collectives and constructed independent clusters and restarted their lives in the new environment.
5)       Some of the families tried to settle in government sponsored colonies, without any success.
6)       Some of the families are reluctant to leave their earlier lifestyles. They climbed up the hills above the reservoir level and are continuing their earlier life styles.
In terms of numbers, one third of the population, i.e., 456 out of 1298, migrated out in groups of 10 or more families, 67 per cent of them purchased homestead land and only 53 per cent of them purchased agricultural lands.

 

During our revisit to the rehabilitation colonies, it was observed that some of the clusters are successful in the process of transformation to land scarce system while some others are experiencing problems. Nua Majhiguda and Dong Jharna are such examples respectively. These two clusters have their origin in the same village, Paraja Deopalli, but one gets a visual impression that each cluster is unique and different from the other. They project a totally different image.
During our earlier visit to these colonies, observing their attempts to integrate into the new environment, we forecasted that Nua Majhiguda is right on the way to stability whereas Dong Jharna is not able to cope up with the transformation problems, which was proved correct during the later visit. Though these two clusters share the same origin and even share the same cultural life, they differ in their process of transformation. Here, an attempt is made to analyse the process of transformation in these two villages, in the backdrop of the framework discussed above.
Paraja Deopalli, one of the 92 villages partially submerged due to the formation of the reservoir, has 45 tribal (Paraja) families residing in it. Out of these families, a set of 17 families selected a piece of land in plain area, constructed a new colony and named it Nua Majhiguda. Initially 2 scheduled caste families from another village joined the cluster but later left the village to join another village. No new family further joined the cluster due to which this new cluster transformed into a cohesive and closed system, closed to the new entrants. Another set of 17 families climbed up the hill in the same neighbourhood of their earlier village and occupied lands next to a Jharna/stream and hence the name Dong Jharna.
Over a period of time, 15 scheduled caste families from other submerged villages joined the cluster. With the entry of these additional families of a different community the cluster presented itself as a heterogeneous double community cluster, which is open to new entrants. One can find a similarity between both the clusters, that they originate from the same village and also both of them rejected government sponsored rehabilitation colonies and took upon themselves the responsibility of resettlement in a new place.
The similarity ends here, as systematic planning and organisation gets reflected in terms of buying their homestead and agricultural lands in the former cluster whereas that was lacking in the latter cluster. In Dong Jharna, there are quite a number of families who occupied the lands available on the hill tracks and constructed their houses. This provides a vague indication that there may be a person in Nua Majhiguda, with a vision of a new economic system and also could convince all the other families and make them believe that they can transform into a better society where their welfare will be taken care of.
Contrarily, the second cluster appears to be only a bunch families coming together as a stopgap arrangement, only to absorb the shock of migration without any vision of future. A revisit to the two clusters confirmed this when we could witness the families in Nua Majhiguda are attempting to solve the initial day to day problems themselves whereas the families of Dong Jharna, anticipating that somebody has to some to their rescue, wait for the state to come forward even to remove the silt and clean the stream so that their water problems get solved. One can put forward a preposition that the operator, the idea of social transformation for a better future, is endogenously generated and even owned by all the families in Nua Majhiguda, whereas endogeneity and ownership of the idea of transformation is absent in Dong Jharna.
Let us examine the two clusters in their process of transformation.
Prior to submergence, one can assume that the leadership rested mostly with the females who functioned as a single collective as their access to various resources is collective but with no sense of private property. Later in the backdrop of state already introducing patriarchy (during the initial compensation phase itself which got strengthened in the later phase) into the form of well-defined unit of “family”, the leadership of family as well as the community got transferred from a female collective to an individual single male with an interest to protect his newly acquired status. The new leadership, in order to safeguard its private property, introduced new division of labour with lesser role for women.
The major changes the new leadership introduced are as follows-
1.      The new cluster was located in a plain area and majority of the families purchased homestead land and constructed their colony in a planned and systematic manner, with rows of houses on one side with each house having a separate cowshed and also a backyard where they can grow some vegetables.
2.       The cluster, over a period of time was transformed into a homogenous closed unit, facilitating the leadership to function effectively.
3.      Majority of the families purchased lands nearer to homestead land. They introduced settled cultivation in addition to their podu cultivation but gradually reduced their dependence on podu cultivation. All the adults, both males and females, participated in all the activities of cultivation.
4.      Women were withdrawn from their major activity of collecting forest products so that they can perform various agricultural activities, as their lands are nearer their homes.

 

All these changes indicate that a new leadership got generated which had an alternate vision of a new society with different strategies for transformation. Gradually, importance of podu cultivation got reduced and their dependence on settled agriculture, mostly on the piece of land they purchased, increased.
However, the land they could purchase with the compensation money was limited, on average it was 1.91 acres per family, which was more than the average land they cultivated earlier. Here, any increase in output is possible only through land, but the land they can buy is limited by the compensation money they got. Gradually land became important resource for production.
They now experienced/understood that they can produce the same amount of output as earlier, utilising less of their labour. They can produce more output by concentrating their productive activities on land instead of performing diverse activities like collecting forest
products and moving around the hills to perform shifting cultivation. Through this transformation, the labour, which was scarce earlier, now became excess and the land which bwas abundant earlier now became a scarce resource indicating that labour scarce system
got transformed into a land scarce system.
1)Dong Jharna, unlike Nua Majhiguda, selected a rocky terrain to locate their cluster, occupied some lands to construct their houses, which look like a temporary transit arrangement that lacks planning with a new vision of society. Here, though the earlier leadership of women’s collective lost their authority in the process of displacement and rehabilitation, a new leadership which has a vision to initiate changes in order to stabilise the cluster could not get generated.
2)The cluster, over a period of a decade, attracted migrants of another community from different villages which created a cleavage in the settlement. Instead of becoming a closed homogenous unit, it transformed into an open heterogeneous unit associated with inherent internal tensions in sharing the available resources. It appears that a single leadership, capable of creating a closed unit or can function efficiently in an open unit, which is always open to new entrants without any restrictions, did not emerge in the cluster.
3)Almost half of the families purchased land in the village called Kanneimunda, 10 km away from their homes. The cost of land per acre here is more than the rest of the places but the people believed that it must be a fertile land suitable for agriculture.However, in a decade’s time, most of the tribal families had to sell away their lands. The reason given was that the lands were far away, which meant that they could not monitor properly. This induced them to give the lands on share cropping which also failed and finally they were forced to sell them.
In contrast, some of the scheduled caste families purchased lands and started cultivation. Comparing the two communities in their relation to land, scheduled caste families own more land and encroached less land where as scheduled tribes own less land and encroached more land. As a consequence, the former slowly veered towards settled cultivation, that too on their
own lands, whereas the latter are increasing their dependence on shifting cultivation on encroached lands.
4)  Since the agricultural lands in the initial period are far away, women could not continue their agricultural activities. Further, some of the families sold their lands forcing the women and even children in tribal families to concentrate more on collecting various forest products for self- sustenance.
All these changes in Dong Jharna indicate that a suitable new leadership with an alternate vision of a new society could not emerge. Gradually the divisions in the cluster became visible with one community attempting to depend more on settled agriculture and the other community retracing its path back to dependency more on podu cultivation and collecting
forest products for survival.
 Hence the cluster as a single unit, could not change their perceptions of scarcity of a single resource, one community pushing forward to transform into a land scarce system, while another community is pulling backwards to continue in labour scarce system.
In a nutshell, the two clusters, which were of the same origin with same economic and cultural practices, traversed different paths for transformation. In Nua Majhiguda, all the four conditions for success for an operator –idea of transformation to a different scarce system namely, endogeneity and ownership of the operator, generation of a new leadership and change of scarcity in the system, are satisfied.

 

In contrast, in Dong Jharna, all the four conditions for an operator to be successful could not be satisfied, indicating Nua Majhiguda could successfully transform and develop into a new society but Dong Jharna could not succeed. Dong Jharna remained as a cluster that is very volatile and unstable, ready to disintegrate at any time.
This entry was posted in Teori. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.