>Mike Davis in his new book on 19th c genocides describes how British
>laisser-faire policies guaranteed famines + colonial subjection in India;
The things which guarantee colonial subjection are called armies. The invisible
hand doesn't. As to famines, there are obviously multiple factors and everyone has
a different explanation.
>imperialism, in this view, worked to consolidate and entrench the
>core-periphery divide which is still accelerating today and is still at the
>heart of the modern - imperialist- world-system.
>
>Here is quite a different view, by an authoritative *Indian* economist, which
>argues that it was the fault of the caste system. This, not the Brits, stopped
>Indian take-off in its tracks.
It seems to me that colonial subjection, industrialisation, and famines are related
but different matters. Why are you lumping them together, Mark? The abstract talks
about growth in per capital incomes... Whatever the level of aggregate per capita
incomes, not enough food and/or too unequal distribution means famines. It comes
down to who gets the income. One can imagine industrialisation plus colonial
subjection and famines. Isn't it precisely what happend?
BTW, he's not an *Indian* economist but an Indian *economist*. Do economists
have a country? :-)
Julien
_______________________________________________
CrashList website: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
