This article discusses Rudolphs’ contribution to the study of India’s political economy. Taking off from the ideas they presented in their work, In Pursuit of Lakshmi, the article argues that certain concepts, such as Bullock capitalists, demand-led growth, involuted pluralism, federal market economy and state as a third actor, continue to be critical in understanding India. Through these conceptual innovations, Rudolph and Rudolph not only analyzed India at a given moment but also shaped the larger agenda of debates over India’s political economy.
AndersonB. (1983). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. London: Verso.
2.
BardhanP. (1998 [1984]). The political economy of development in India (Expanded Edition). New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
3.
BasuA. (1990). State autonomy and agrarian transformation. Comparative Politics, 22(4), 483–500.
4.
FoucaultM. (1995 [1975]). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (2nd ed.). New York: Vintage Books.
5.
FrankelF. (1969). Democracy and political development: Perspectives from the Indian experience. World Politics, 21(3), 448–468.
6.
FrankelF. (1979). India’s political economy, 1947–1977: The gradual revolution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
7.
FrankelF., & RaoM.S.A. (Eds). (1990). Dominance and state power in Modern India: Decline of a social order (Vols. 1–2). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8.
HerringR. (1983). Land to the tiller: The political economy of agrarian reform in South Asia. New Haven: Yale University Press.
9.
JenkinsR. (1999). Democratic politics and economic reform in India. New York: Cambridge University Press.
10.
KohliA. (1987). The state and poverty in India: The politics of reform. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11.
KohliA. (1990). Democracy and discontent: India’s growing crisis of governability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12.
LievenA. (1988). Review. International Affairs, 64(4), 729–731.
13.
LowiT. (1964). American business, public policy, case studies and political theory. World Politics, 16(4), 677–715.
14.
NarainI. (Ed.). (1967). State politics in India. New Delhi: Meenakshi Prakashan.
15.
NayarBaldev. (2000). The limits of economic nationalism in India: Economic reforms under the BJP-Led government, 1998–1999. Asian Survey, 40(5), 792–815.
16.
PolanyiK. (1945). The great transformation: The political and economic origins of our time. Boston: Beacon Press.
17.
PiersonP. (1993). When effect becomes cause: Policy feedback and political change. World Politics, 45(4), 595–628.
18.
RudolphS. (1987). Presidential address: State formation in Asia: Prolegomenon to a comparative study. The Journal of Asian Studies, 46(4), 731–746.
19.
RudolphS. (2005). Presidential address: The imperialism of categories: Situating knowledge in a globalizing world. Perspectives on Politics, 3(1), 5–14.
20.
RudolphLloyd I., & RudolphSusanne. (2001). Iconization of Chandrababu: Sharing sovereignty in India’s federal market economy. Economic and Political Weekly, 36(18), 1541–1552.
21.
RudolphLloyd I., & RudolphSusanne. (1987). In pursuit of Lakshmi: The political economy of the Indian state. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
22.
RudolphL., & JacobsenJohn Kurt (Eds). (2006). Experiencing the state. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
23.
SaezL. (2002). Federalism without a center. New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
24.
ScottJ. (1999). Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. New Haven: Yale University Press.
25.
SinhaA. (2004). The changing political economy of federalism in India: A historical institutionalist approach. India Review, 3(1), 25–63.
26.
SinhaA. (2005). Regional roots of developmental politics in India: A divided leviathan. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
27.
WeinerM. (Ed.). (1968). State politics in India. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
28.
WoodJ. (Ed.). (1984). State politics in contemporary India: Crisis or continuity?Boulder: Westview Press.
29.
VarshneyA. (2016). Lloyd and Susanne Rudolph. Economic and Political Weekly, 51(11/12), 23–27.
