Question 1: economic inclusion results in political inclusion?

When you say “the achievement of economic inclusion (economic citizenship)”, are you strictly referring to marginalized groups (or people that were previously dis-empowered) in a given society? The reason I ask this reflects the current reality of post-war Sri Lanka (SL). In the post-war period, the state has become even more centralized, and power has been further concentrated under the President. This creeping authoritarianism is buttressed by a powerful military. At the level of society, the hegemony of Sinhala Buddhist nationalism and polarizing identity politics further strengthens the concentration of state power. there is a visible deepening of capitalist development that will accentuate the social contradictions of capitalism and add a new dimension to state-society relations in SL. There are new elements within this regime that want to utilise state power for the purpose of capital accumulation within a market economy. what seems to be new under the current regime is the power of these new social classes. these political forces do not want a shift in economic policies from the direction of an open market policy. But they seek to utilise state power for their own ends within this framework. The current regime has considerable support from these classes. These classes are certainly not ‘marginalized’, but they certainly influence political decision making because of their economic citizenship. They have achieved economic inclusion through collective and cooperative means – patronage networks. Many politicians enter politics in order to access state resources for the purpose of distributing it through a patronage network and ensuring that they remain in power. what is alarming is that there is a large section of the SL population that does no see any problem with this phenomenon, and expects politicians to behave in this manner. Unfortunately, this environment is not conducive to the achievement of economic inclusion of marginalized groups. The trend we’re seeing now is the opposite.

Hi Vagisha
First of all welcome to the group!
To your question whether economic citizenship/ inclusion in the context of our work is about the disempowered people – yes, it is about socio-economically marginalized groups. The restructuring of the economy towards free market economy as you describe is going on in other countries too. In the Indian context it has further disempowered the groups either by taking away their resources such as land, forest etc. for capitalist growth or by excluding them from the benefits of the growth or by pushing them outside the boundary of formal economy. The state is an active supporter in this negotiations of economic and political power. Economic marginalization of the already marginalized groups is thus accelerated and fraught with new complexities as large number of people come to occupy the informal sector of the economy with its associated vulnerabilities. How do the poor respond to this by creating new forms of economic activities /inclusion or by strengthening their hold over their subsistence resources or old forms of livelihood, and whether this economic empowerment enables them to make political decisions / raise voices/ claim rights? We see this happening in India, but the groups have to struggle against tremendous odds that also reduce their agency many times.

Hi all, a really interesting discussion so far. Aly Karam (from the University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa) and I will be working on a case case study that focuses on the intersections between informal economic activity and political participation amongst immigrant communities in two cities: Toronto, Canada and Johannesburg, South Africa. The aim of the study is to explore how different forms of informal economic engagement map onto emerging forms of local political participation amongst immigrants in high-poverty neighbourhoods in both cities. Our research project will examine the differences and/or similarities in histories and patterns of immigration in both cities, and how variances in political context, city management, political authority and social mobilization shape emerging intersections between economic and political citizenship. We plan to partner with community-based organization that have already engaged extensively in research on informal economic activities amongst immigrant communities in both cities.

In response to our e-dialogue’s first question about the relation between econmic citizenship and political participation or civic engagement, here are some initial thoughts. While much recent research has focused on mapping the range of informal economic activities high poverty immigrants engage in, relatively little work has been done to understand how their experiences of economic activity (as opposed to “citizenship” which implies inclusion ) generate new forms of informal or formal political participation or “political” citizenship. In recent years there has been a renewed focus on political participation or “political citizenship” as a mechanism for overcoming not only political exclusion, but also social and economic exclusion. However, while there is a growing consensus on the importance of political participation for marginalized communities’ access to economic resources, there are surprisingly few studies that examine how informal economic activities potentially generate inclusive political participation that in turn produce more empowered forms of economic citizenship. The few studies that do look at the intersection between economic and political citizenship have shown that political participation (formal and informal) does not necessarily lead to deeper forms of economic inclusion and vice versa. We need to understand under what conditions, if any, this might occur. So in our study we are keen to explore whether there are, in fact, mutually empowering relations between new forms of informal economic citizenship and diverse forms of political participation. There might not be any mutually empowering relations given how many recent immigrants experience disempowerment in their new host communities which themselves are fragile – at least in Toronto. In our research we will examine the intersections between informal economic activities and specifically local forms of informal and formal political participation. By informal political participation we mean non-institutionalised political activity. Here we include:
• informal, unregistered social and community networks
• informal grassroots advocacy campaigns
• informal, unregistered local associations (religious, cultural, political)
By formal participation we mean institutionalised political participation. This includes:
• registered neighbourhood associations
• local government and municipal government participation
• political party participation

Hi Vagisha
If you could clarify this for me to understand SL situation- you say that patronage politics has undermined the state capacity, my query is – Isn’t it that the rise of patronage politics rests at the core of changing nature of the state as neoliberal economy reconfigures the social and political powers? isn’t it then that patronage politics is part of, and result of, the loss of state capacity than the cause ?

Hi Ranjita, it’s a good question. I agree with you that initially it was the loss of state capacity that led to patronage politics. But in SL, the post-1977 period is characterized by the institutionalization of patronage politics….the principal feature of this phenomenon is access to political power being utilized to doll out state resources (not only monetary resources, but things such as government jobs) to groups networked with members of the political class. Family, kinship, links through old school networks, etc. provides this network. Now these networks are rooted in political and economic institutions and are so powerful to the extent that they influence policy. An example would be the various business interests and the political class who are keen on making use of state power to exploit the resources and the labour in the North and East of SL. But of course, it has to be understood in SL’s context – domination by a centralized state + supported by the military + the public distracted by identity politics.

Hi All
Thanks Vagisha for clarifying; I can now put it in perspective.
Reading all the posts this morning I find few key ideas that will help guide this work further.
One is the overall macro context of the country and the global context in which new patterns of economic exclusion are contested and new patterns of inclusion are claimed. And whether there are possibilities for political inclusion. And if so, then what kind and to what extent. This is visible in SL and India. The trends are visible in other countries as well.
Solidarity economy towards which Alison points out and the kind of political citizenship it creates.
What I think emerging very strongly is – different types, or their lack, of political citizenship. Bettina has spoken about it. This aspect needs more unpacking. The correlation between economic and political I suspect may not be straight forward in many cases.

That’s for now.