1.2 ‘Prosperity and Violence’ by Robert Bates 

1.2.1 What is the book about?

Robert Bates analyses the process of transformation of agrarian societies to industrial societies. His main focus is on the political and economic aspects of this transformation. He analyses the process of domestication (institutionalization and management) of violence – the ‘coercive force’ – in agricultural societies that lead to increased prosperity in industrial societies. This is because the inefficacy of private provisions of security is overcome in industrial societies.

 

Analysis of kinship societies

I found his analysis of the kinship societies such as the Neur societies as most interesting. These societies are able to maintain law and order in absence of formal dispute resolution institutions such as courts and tribunals. It is interesting for me because I am able to relate this concept to the society I come from. The society in my village is divided into different groups based on castes and religion. The contentious issues are decided on the caste considerations and not on the merit of the issue at hand. For example, if a caste member does something wrong, he gets the backing of his caste irrespective of other considerations. Though it is changing now, due in part to provision of courts and other dispute resolution bodies, it points to a method by which these villages were able to maintain peace. Some castes have a reputation for fierce temper and ability to mobilize for their caste brethren. Probably, it points to relatively recent assimilation of these castes in Indian mainstream. In fact, Jats, a caste for fierce reputation is of recent origin, having immigrated to India latter than others. It is worse in tribal societies such as Baluchistan in Pakistan. Concept of honor is the central tenet of these tribes. Honor killings (killing of women by their own family members to salvage their reputation) are an integral part of these tribal societies.  

The author takes a sympathetic view of kinship societies. He dismisses the view held by other sociologists that these societies are static (opposed to change) or not interested in expansion. On the contrary, these societies expand by investing in youth and sending them as scouts to look for opportunities elsewhere. From my village and other surrounding villages, a lot of people have migrated to Kolkatta, Assam and other areas. After the youth had established themselves in these areas, they called their own caste members to work with them. Many of the rich families in India today, for example the Birla family, had been helped in a similar manner when their youth were looking for opportunities. GD Birla stayed in an accommodation provided by his caste members and ate in mess subsidized by the caste members who had emigrated earlier. This caste of Marwaris controls the majority stake in trade and commerce in India today. They have institutionalized the concept of ‘help’ for their struggling members. In majority of Indian cities today, there are subsidized accommodation and eating places provided by this community. They also help their caste members in education and for other activities such as marriage of a girl child (it is costlier to marry a girl child in India). 

Other communities such as Punjabis and Gujaratis have followed a similar pattern for emigration to Western nations. After a young member successfully immigrates to a new land, he calls his other family members and members of his clan. He supports the newly emigrated members financially and in other ways so that clan as a whole benefits. In Antwerp, Holland, a particular caste from Palanpur has a majority stake in diamond trade. They followed similar pattern to emigration.

1.2.3 Bates insight 

Perhaps, the biggest contribution is Bates insight in wealth predatory and wealth creating states. One could take his analysis a step further and hypothesize the reason for difference in wealth and poverty of nations today. Jared Diamond does a terrific job to incorporate the idea of geographic determinism in development of human societies. Landes tries to ascribe culture as the factor. North assimilates these two ideas by propagating the centrality of institutions in the developmental debate. After a thorough analysis, there is no doubt that institutions have been the deciding factors. But the question is, “Why would the institutions be different in the first place”? What made some societies to develop institutions that were no more than re-distributive agencies of wealth in the best case (the Incas, the Spain) and repressive agencies at worst (India, China)? I think insight provided by Bates can point an answer to this question. 

 

1.2.4 An analysis using Bates insight

1.2.4.1 Case of England

In England the crown did not have enough wealth (collected by taxation) to finance wars and be engaged in other activities that would increase his influence and power. Therefore the crown had to encourage activities such as trade that increased their tax base. It helped the English king was in competition with other countries.  

1.2.4.2 Case of India and China

On the other hand, in India and China, the elites were fabulously rich. This was because they were able to put an efficient system in place to exploit the peasants and enrich themselves at their expense. The system was so efficient that though the Indian and Chinese populace was as rich or as poor as Europe, their kings and other elites were rich many times over. As these countries were isolated, there was no competition with other kingdoms and therefore did not have a need to increase their power base. The Indian and Chinese kings could survive on agrarian society without a need for trade. Therefore, there was no incentive for the ruling elite in India or China to let others engage in trade and lose their leading positions to the traders. When Sir Thomas Roe, English Ambassador to Mughal emperor Jahangir, wanted a trade treaty, Jahangir remarked that what kind of king would concern himself with petty things such as trade.  

1.2.4.3 Contribution of clergy

Since clergy, the priest class, derives its power from the aegis of the elite, they changed the traditions to make them unfavorable to trade. India had a good trading relationship with South-East Asia, Arabia, and other regions. But by the time British established their state in India, sea travel was forbidden by tradition. The moot point is that there were incentives in England and other European states for development of trade, in India and China there were incentives to curb it. It is not true that all the Indian kings opposed trade. Those kings who established dynasties such as Akbar, the Mughal king, built roads, and carried out other projects that increased the tax base. But for their successors, the tax base was so huge that they could squander it in building domes for his favorite wife (out of 300 others) or be engaged in other non-productive works.  

 1.2.5 Lesson to present governments

Bates book has a lesson for governments existing today. Governments, which can survive merely on predating wealth and redistributing poverty, will impede the economic development of their people. On the other hand, the governments that have to create wealth on account of being accountable to public will improve the quality of life of their citizens. Economic history of independent India testifies to this fact. Pre-1990, the government assumed that its role was to redistribute wealth. Fortunately for us, the debt crisis in 1990’s forced the government to abandon the policy of industrial protection, retreat from import-substitution industrialization and led to promotion of exports abroad. Since the quality of life has improved and the people have become more aware the government has become more accountable. Hopefully this trend will continue.

1.2.6 Domestication of violence

Other concepts I found most interesting were the concept of domestication of violence. His illustration of case in Kenya and Uganda bolsters his claim. The reason a risk-averse farmer would be interested in investing in capital when there is peace is a very subtle and important observation. His explanation of natural forces, which lead to the formation of states from agrarian societies, was really interesting. His explanation of process by which these forces would lead to wealth predatory states and others to wealth generating states is very relevant to the present debate on development. To conclude, it is a very analytical book that explains a lot about politics and economics of development.  

1.2.7 Recommendation

To summarize, I recommend you find time to read this wonderful book.