Plantation colonialism,capitalism, and critics

Scholars have variously described the development experience of the Indian state of Kerala as a “model” or a “paradox” or an “enigma” and posited different meanings and significance to its developmental trajectory. Rather than following the usual one-dimensional accounting of Kerala's achievements and shortcomings, we present a historically informed social and political analysis to reveal the meaning and significance of the “Kerala model” of development. This article, thus, critically appraises Kerala's development experience since decolonization to show how the discourse on development and the discursive practices of the dominant actors involved in governance of Kerala diverge in recent years, especially after the second round of economic liberalizations at the national level in 1991, which coincidently corresponds to the beginning of the newest phase of economic globalization. Old lessons are reviewed based on the notion of replicability of the “Kerala model” and new lessons are analyzed within the contexts of sustainability and economic globalization.     

DEREGULATION: THE PRINCIPAL INCONCLUSIVE ARGUMENTS1

The authors suggest that most arguments in favor of deregulation are really double-edged swords which render the debate over deregulation inconclusive at best. They challenge the following positions as inconclusive: (1) that deregulation per se is good; (2) that it protects rights; (3) that deregulation removes uncertainties concerning the marketplace; (4) that it reduces “nitpicking” and coercive regulation; (5) that deregulation promotes greater productivity and efficiency; (6) that it combats inflation; (7) that regulations often cannot be justified by benefits over costs; and (8) there are serious problems of attaining optimum levels of regulation. Special interest groups in favor of deregulation are seen to bear a remarkable resemblance to groups opposed to deregulation.     

Feminist Activism,Third Party Interventions and the Courts

This article discusses feminist engagement in the judicial process in the light of the changing constitutional landscape in the U.K. It considers feminist activism in the courts and the potential that third party interventions provide for feminists to influence judicial decision making under the Human Rights Act 1998. The impact of the intervention by women’s groups in the case of R. v. A. (No. 2) is discussed. Despite the disappointing decision, it is argued that the intervention was a worthwhile endeavour. Third party interventions are important if feminists are to hold on to the gains they have made through the legislative process. Interventions also offer an opportunity to build a litigation strategy that will help shape the development of the case law under the Human Rights Act 1998.