United States Hegemony and Globalisation: What Role for Theories of Imperialism?

This article examines the return of the subject of imperialism to the social sciences since 2001, focusing in particular on Marxist and Marxist-related attempts to reconstruct an analysis of the US-led international order based on this concept. It does so by first examining attempts to update Marxist and Marxian work to understand contemporary globalisation, and then points to both the weaknesses of these approaches and international events that have undermined these theories. The paper then examines the return of imperialism in some detail. While the international order can still be described as imperialist, the article is sceptical of many accounts of the ‘new imperialism’. This is partly because the utility of classical theories was questionable in the pre-1914 era, and are even more so now. Theorising imperialism in turns of surplus capital or a spatial fix ignores the direction of capital flows, both before the First World War, and in the current era. Moreover, as Marxist and Marxian theories of globalisation point out, the current era is one of greater openness and international integration than the pre-1914 era, and there is far greater cooperation between the core capitalist states, as well as sovereign states in the developing world. Contemporary imperialism is characterised by US hegemony but also greater global interdependence, and US military domination does not guarantee its economic domination. At the same time however, US hegemony is closely related to neo-liberalism and, despite as much as because of US intentions, these same policies undermine the prospects for development in the ‘South’. In this respect, US attempts to ‘Americanise’ the world are undermined by US hegemony and the imperialism of free trade.     

Insecure peace: understanding citizen and local government relations in a Maoist-affected region in India

This paper examines emerging citizen and local government relations in a village in the Junglemahal region of the state of West Bengal, once a major bastion of the Maoist insurgency in India. Since 2014, Junglemahal has not experienced a single Maoist-related incident. This has been widely attributed to the West Bengal government’s “model” handling of the insurgency, which rests on the rapid mobilization of public services through the non-elected arms of local governments, bypassing elected officials. How have Junglemahal’s residents experienced this particular form of post-conflict governance? Drawing on the culture-centered approach that ethnographically observes the processes of identifying development problems and developing community-grounded solutions to these problems, our findings indicate that the hyper-developmental state was paradoxically experienced by our respondents as a very distant entity. A recurrent theme in our interviews is the absence of a locally embedded party leadership that could be approached regarding issues of distributive justice. We argue that this desire for party mediation in public service delivery is an expression of a powerful social norm that has survived the conflict and ought to be integrated into post-conflict governance structures if the current peace is to endure.     

Conflict,collusion and corruption in small-scale gold mining: Chinese miners and the state in Ghana

As gold prices soared from 2008 onwards, tens of thousands of foreign miners, especially from China, entered the small-scale mining sector in Ghana, despite it being ‘reserved for Ghanaian citizens’ by law. A free-for-all ensued in which Ghanaian and Chinese miners engaged in both contestation and collaboration over access to gold, a situation described as ‘out of control’ and a ‘culture of impunity’. Where was the state? This paper addresses the question of how and why pervasive and illicit foreign involvement occurred without earlier state intervention. Findings indicate that the state was not absent. Foreign miners operated with impunity precisely because they were protected by those in authority, that is, public officials, politicians and chiefs, in return for private payments. Explaining why state institutions failed in their responsibilities leads to reflection about the contemporary state in Ghana. It is concluded that the informality and corruption characteristic of neopatrimonialism remains predominant over legal–rational structures, albeit in a form that has adapted to neoliberal restructuring. Public office remains a means of private enrichment rather than public service. Such findings cast a shadow over the state and government in Ghana, and tarnish its celebration as a model of democratic governance for Africa.