More than 100 Years of Ambedkar鈥檚 The Problem of the Rupee: Insights, ideas and intellectual rigour still awaiting discovery

Srihari ChikotiLeave a comment

It has been more than a century since Ambedkar鈥檚 second disquisition in the discipline of economics was published; The problem of the rupee: its origin and its solution was published in the year 1923. Ambedkar was awarded a Doctor of Science (D. Sc) upon completion of the aforementioned dissertation from the London School of Economics. Later, during the same year, it was published as a book (Jadhav 2015, p. 39).

This essay is fundamentally a tribute to The problem of the rupee; it aims to serve as a primer by discussing the theoretical gravitas and intellectual depth that Ambedkar鈥檚 second disquisition entails. While it is well-recognized that Ambedkar was trained in economics鈥攈olding two doctoral degrees[1]鈥攁nd made significant contributions to law and politics, this essay sheds light upon a few interactions with different economists and economic conditions that Ambedkar鈥檚The problem of the rupee engages with and subsequently invites for more extensive and nuanced engagement with the monograph.

Earlier, there have been multiple scholarly contributions that engaged with The problem of the rupee. However, they present only the overarching arguments i.e., the arguments are void of the details that explain the intellectual brilliance that is present in Ambedkar (1923). For instance, Jadhav claims that, after evaluating the Indian monetary system and operations, Ambedkar was in favour of a gold-standard rather than a gold-exchange standard (1991, p. 980). In a rudimentary sense, what gold standard and a gold-exchange standard mean is that the former indicates a monetary practice where gold is the direct form of currency that would be available for circulation. On the other hand, the latter i.e., the gold exchange standard is a condition where gold would not be a medium of exchange, but another form of currency would be the medium of exchange as gold would be held for reserve exchanges.

Read More »

The economist who exposed the hypocrisy of the free market

benjaminselwynLeave a comment

The economist Alice Amsden鈥檚 work unmasked the dirty secret underlying capitalist development: it relied on states breaking all the rules of the free market. But her work also showed that industrialization required corporate discipline, not welfare.

For American defenders of economic liberalism and free markets, China鈥檚 rise has been deeply disorientating. Unmoved by concerns about the market distorting effects of picking winners, the Communist Party of China has engaged in a focused campaign of industrial policy, using the state to discipline firms that have gone on to become globally competitive.

For the economist Alice Amsden, who came to prominence in the late 1980s for her writing on global development and died in 2012, the success of China would not have come as a surprise. Amsden began her career as powerful development institutions such as the World Bank were touting deregulation and privatization as solutions to global poverty. But the experience of the postwar years, in which South Korea 鈥� a recurring object of study for Amsden 鈥� used industrial policy to drag itself into middle income status, was a refutation of the orthodoxies rehearsed at Davos and in the International Monetary Fund.

The embrace of state subsidies to firms, tariffs, and large-scale infrastructure spending under Joe Biden and Donald Trump鈥檚 presidencies is partly a concession to the kind of developmentalist thinking advocated by Amsden. However, Amsden, a fellow traveler, if not devotee, to Marxism offered a more ambivalent assessment of the records of late industrializing nations like South Korea and China than defenders of Biden/Trumponomics are perhaps willing to countenance. For her, the repression of labor was as important to the success of these nations as large-scale economic coordination.

Read More »

The Economist Who Solved the Free-Rider Problem

benjaminselwynLeave a comment

Defenders of capitalism argue that cooperation is undermined by individuals鈥� tendency to take more from society than they contribute. The economist Elinor Ostrom refuted this idea, but without identifying capitalism as the real cause of exploitation.

Socialist arguments that cooperation and collective action represent the basis of a better society are often dismissed by supporters of capitalism. 鈥淗uman nature,鈥� so the argument goes, is inherently self-seeking.

The so-called 鈥渇ree-rider problem鈥� purports to prove that large-scale cooperation is unsustainable because individuals seek to benefit from the collective action of others while minimizing their own contribution. This tendency is, the argument goes, a barrier to collective solutions to social problems.

Rather than cooperate, individuals should allow market forces to dictate how they decide to allocate their time and resources. Such arguments are applied by supporters of capitalism to explain why rational collective resource management and attempts to tackle climate breakdown are unlikely to succeed without the aid of market forces.

Since capitalism emerged as the world鈥檚 dominant economic system, its defenders have argued that private property rights and the pricing of natural resources are the only way to collectively manage our social goods.

The economist Elinor Ostrom provided a sharp critique of such notions from within the framework of mainstream economics. She demonstrated that cooperative management of natural resources can preserve rather than degrade them, and that trust between strangers can be established, expanded, and become the basis of collaborative ways of managing what she described as 鈥渃ommon-pool resources.鈥�

Within the field of sustainable development studies, her work became highly influential and helped to bring the notion of 鈥渢he commons鈥� to a broader audience. However, outside of academia, she remains largely unknown 鈥� a glaring oversight in a world in which education, water, and even land are increasingly run and managed for and by private companies.

Read More »

COOPT, EMPTY, EVISCERATE: Nievas and Piketty on Unequal Exchange

G眉ney I艧谋kara1 Comment

By G眉ney I艧谋kara and

The recent paper by Gast贸n Nievas and Thomas Piketty, has gained substantial praise as well as criticism in a short period of time. Their empirical endeavor is impressive: the authors compiled and published a large dataset of balance of payments, including traded goods, services, direct transfers, and income from foreign labor and capital assets. This is a gruelling task in itself, and the dataset will certainly provide the foundations for many fruitful studies. For many academic economists, Nievas and Piketty鈥檚 own interpretation of the data constitutes one such great contribution for it puts forward, as the title of their paper suggests, that modern inequalities across regions and countries have their roots in colonial extraction and unequal exchange characterizing international trade until today. 

We on the other hand argue that the paper falls behind the state of perception of international inequalities in the Marxist tradition, dependency and structural economics literature. It (1) grasps global inequality as the outcome of a collection of distortions of the capitalist market mechanism rather than as an intrinsic feature of the latter; (2) consequently, proposes structural reforms to alter the power asymmetries in international trade, without an appropriate model of those power relations and why they exist in the first place; (3) lacks an adequate theory of production, value and price to understand the exchange relations at stake; and (4) artificially separates the term unequal exchange from the existing literature on trade inequalities, value transfers, and drain of wealth.  

Read More »

Rethinking Economic Development from the Household: Property, Resilience, and Institutional Adaptation in Rural China

tingxulawLeave a comment

What if the story of economic development doesn鈥檛 begin with the market, but with the household? And what if property, often assumed to be a static bundle of rights, is better understood as a dynamic institution鈥攁daptive, historically layered, and relational?

These questions sit at the heart of my recent research, which I had the opportunity to present at the Open University鈥檚 legal histories conference Land and Property Beyond the Centenary. While my work focuses on property governance and transformation in rural China, its implications stretch far beyond. It challenges dominant liberal narratives about property and development by presenting institutional change as a process of negotiated adaptation shaped by vulnerability and crisis, rather than a linear path towards free markets and individual ownership.

At its core, this work brings into dialogue three theoretical frameworks that are rarely combined: resilience theory, Martha Fineman鈥檚 vulnerability jurisprudence, and evolutionary institutional economics inspired by Thorstein Veblen. Together, they offer a rich toolkit for reimagining how development happens鈥攁nd for whom.

Read More »

Ranking Heterodox Economics Journals: A New Approach

jcoronadoarciniegasLeave a comment

by Jos茅 Alejandro Coronado and

There is growing concern about the increasing emphasis on journal rankings in academia. This is of special consequence in economics: given theoretical and methodological cleavages, heterodox outlets tend to be marginalised in traditional ranking systems.

Despite this, journal rankings are used and may indeed be useful. , we explored how to build a ranking that appropriately reflects the reputation of heterodox economics journals amongst heterodox economists (Coronado and Veneziani, 2025).

We are not the first ones to build rankings for heterodox economics journals. Fred Lee and others (e.g., Lee et al., 2010; Cronin, 2020) developed heterodox economics journal rankings based on subjective peer evaluations combined with bibliometric indicators. These composite “quality” indices had the objective of measuring research quality in the heterodox economics community.

In contrast, we measure reputation and intellectual influence within the heterodox economics community by focusing exclusively on bibliometric indicators. Thus, we capture the views of the heterodox economics community through their citation choices.

To build our ranking we require, first, a tool to rank journals based on bibliometric data. We adopt the Palacios-Huerta and Volij (2004) (PV) index 鈥� a theoretically-founded measure of intellectual influence within citation networks. Unlike simple citation counts or impact factors, the PV index accounts for both the quantity and the prestige of citations received, capturing the recursive structure of intellectual influence.

Read More »

Digital Lords or Capitalist Titans? Critiquing the Techno-Feudalism Narrative

Arif NoviantoLeave a comment

In recent years, the rise of platform monopolies such as Google, Amazon, Meta, and Microsoft has sparked a growing discourse among scholars and public intellectuals, many of whom describe these developments through the lens of a supposed return to feudal structures. This narrative, often labeled as techno-feudalism or digital feudalism, suggests that contemporary digital capitalism is no longer driven primarily by labor exploitation, but by rent extraction and control over digital infrastructures (Varoufakis, 2021).

Prominent left-leaning thinkers such as Yanis Varoufakis, Mariana Mazzucato, McKenzie Wark, Jodi Dean, David Arditi, and Robert Kuttner have employed the techno-feudalism framework to highlight the increasing asymmetries of power and wealth in the digital age.

The term has gained significant traction, not least because of its rhetorical force and capacity to evoke historical imaginaries of servitude, hierarchy, and immobility (Morozov, 2022). Yet its growing popularity has also introduced analytical imprecision, with many adopting the label as a buzzword rather than engaging critically with its implications. At first glance, the metaphor appears appealing: today鈥檚 tech giants resemble lords presiding over digital fiefdoms, extracting value from users and workers who have little choice but to submit to the rules of the platform. However, this article argues that such analogies are conceptually flawed and politically misleading.

Drawing on the tradition of critical political economy, this paper challenges the techno-feudalism thesis by contending that the digital economy remains deeply embedded within capitalist logics, particularly in its monopolistic and financialized forms. What we are witnessing is not a reversion to feudal relations, but an intensification of capitalist accumulation strategies under new technological conditions. Platform monopolies do not derive power from land ownership or inherited status, but from their capacity to commodify data, enforce algorithmic control, and monetize access to essential infrastructures鈥攅specially through cloud computing and digital platforms. These dynamics do not mark a rupture from capitalism but rather its latest mutation, in which market domination is achieved through the mechanisms of monopoly, not feudal hierarchy.

By debunking the techno-feudalism myth, this article seeks to redirect the critique toward the enduring structures of capitalist domination that continue to define the digital economy. Understanding Big Tech as capitalist titans, rather than digital lords, offers a more precise analytical lens for grasping the mechanisms of exploitation, accumulation, and control that shape the contemporary political economy of platforms.

Read More »

Renewing Dependency Theory: The Case of Walter Rodney

dkjohnson18bd6434e0Leave a comment

The failure of mainstream development policy to deliver on the promise of eradicating global poverty is increasingly difficult to deny (World Bank 2024). As a result, theories of global development are opening to alternative and critical approaches. In this context there has been a renewal of interest in dependency theory as a rich heterodox tradition of political economy (Kvangraven 2021; Chilcote and Sal茅m Vasconcelos 2022; Antunes de Oliveira and Kvangraven 2024). In a , I turned to one of the foundational scholars of dependency, Walter Rodney (1942-1980), to work through some of the strengths and limits of dependency theory for contemporary studies (Johnson 2023).

Read More »