A+| A| A-
Development, Underdevelopment, and the Yardstick of Parity
The author of Erasing the Binary Distinction of Developed and Underdeveloped: A Comparative Study of the Emergence of the Large-Scale Steel Industry in Imperial Russia, Imperial Britain, Imperial America and Colonial India responds to the review of his book titled “Concept of Development and Hegemonic World Order” (EPW, 30 October 2021).
Manish Kumar’s review “Concept of Development and Hegemonic World Order” (EPW, 30 October 2021) of my book Erasing the Binary Distinction of Developed and Underdeveloped: A Comparative Study of the Emergence of the Large-Scale Steel Industry in Imperial Russia, Imperial Britain, Imperial America and Colonial India is comprehensive to a certain degree and highlights the main points, arguments, and broad contours of the structure of the book while pointing out the significance of the work within the larger debate on the issue of “developed/underdeveloped” economies. However, there are oversights, suggestions, and questions raised in the review that require a response.
Kumar misattributes the author as “he” throughout the review, although the first line in the preface of this book clearly states that the author is a she. Another oversight is that while discussing the author’s idea on “yardstick of parity,” the reviewer writes, “William Spencer” (who is not the author of the book) instead of “Vinay Bahl” (p 31).
Dear Reader,
Or
To gain instant access to this article (download).
(Readers in India)
(Readers outside India)
