Qs.

Is Radhikha Desasi’s analysis too myopic when she views the role of bourgeoisies in the

capitalist development of countries, from a purely economic lens?

Radhika Desai postulates that a capitalist oriented bourgeoisie is necessary to promote

development as they influence the policies and “control of capitalist accumulation”. Similarly,

she slightly mentions ‘social force’ and fails to elaborate its huge importance. She highlights the

importance on the “institutional structures”, which covered the economic and technological

dimension of the ‘late’ developers and allowed France and Japan to overcome the British

hegemony. Her analysis reveals that economic and institutional structures and preferences of the

national bourgeoisies are the main determinants of development.

However, she fails to incorporate the importance of social relations and culture in consolidating

the institutional pathways and relations of productions in development of nations. Her work

follows the linear thinking of development economists such as Daron Acemoglu and James

Robinson, who postulate that the development of institutions, their level of “extractiveness’ and

‘exclusivity’ and their conception by the bourgeoisies in charge of them, determine the course of

development of nations. However, she fails to incorporate the Marxian, Hegelian and Gramscian

perspectives in highlight the importance of ‘social powers’ in her work. Marx’s ‘dialectic

materialism’ and superstructure theory sheds light on the importance of economic base and the

social superstructure. In other words, the importance of customs, norms, laws, and institutional

memories and legitimacy are contingent upon the relations of production. Hence, a unilineal

emphasis on economic forces only is narrow minded and constricting in the first place.
Furthermore, Hegel goes a bit further in his work, ‘Phenomenology of Spirit’ where he

highlights that ideas forms the conceptual basis of reality and structure. This shows that any

mention of ‘structures of development’ without mentioning the ideas, values or strategic culture

of the national bourgeoisie is a futile attempt at delineating the development pathways. Hence,

the question of understanding the forces or ‘idea’ of the national bourgeoisie that manifest

themselves in the ‘actual’ and ‘real’ capitalist accumulation is very important. The attempt has

been made by Gramsci and Foucault in the later part of the twentieth century. Gramsci’s theory

of political hegemony advances Lenin’s theory of political leadership of the working class in

class struggle, and provides his theory of cultural hegemony. He sheds light on the different

ways in which a ‘national bourgeoisie’ uses cultural institutions to maintain and maneuver the

capitalist production in societies. Gramsci says, ‘The idea that a dominant ideology of society-

the beliefs, explanations, perceptions, values, and morals- reflect that of the ruling class. Hence,

the importance of the national bourgeoisies’ cultural and social preferences are as important as

their capitalist ideologies in the development of countries.