Book Review: Markets, Capitalism and Urban Space in India: Right to Sell

Anirban Acharya, Markets, Capitalism and Urban Space in India: Right to Sell, Abingdon and New York, NY: Routledge, 2022; 238 pp.: ISBN: 9781032281131, £39.99 (pbk); ISBN: 9780367465728, £108.00 (hbk); ISBN: 9781003031185, £31.99 (eBook)

A dynamic market is characterised by significant growth in various sectors, increased urbanisation (He and Lin, 2015; Yeh et al., 2015) and the expansion of private enterprises alongside the state’s continued influence in urban development (Hamnett, 2020). In Markets, Capitalism and Urban Space in India: Right to Sell, Anirban Acharya offers a compelling engagement with urban studies, particularly through the lens of neoliberalism and urban informality. He explores how neoliberal governance intersects with informal economies, such as urban street vending, and provides valuable contributions to the ongoing discourse on Indian urbanism. Acharya argues that neoliberal policies which emphasise growth, market competition and corporatisation often result in the marginalisation and suppression of informal markets. This critique of neoliberal governance is particularly insightful in its application to India, where informal economies are crucial for urban livelihoods.

One of the book’s significant strengths is its engagement with the concept of urban informality, a topic explored by scholars like Roy (2005) and Bhan (2019). Roy’s conceptualisation of informality as ‘a mode of urbanization’ highlights its essential role in urban functioning, which is a perspective that Acharya builds upon effectively. Rather than portraying street vending as an economic anomaly to be eliminated, Acharya presents it as an integral and legitimate part of the urban economy. This challenges conventional views that see informality as a temporary or peripheral condition. By focusing on the political economy of street vending in Kolkata, Acharya provides a detailed examination of how informal workers navigate the tensions between state policies and their economic survival. Moreover, his application of Henri Lefebvre’s ‘right to the city’ theory (Lefebvre, 1996) further strengthens this analysis by advocating for the rights of marginalised urban populations, such as street vendors, to access and use urban spaces. Acharya critiques the neoliberal commodification of public spaces and argues for a more inclusive urban governance model that recognises the contributions of informal workers to the urban economy, a perspective that is crucial in Indian cities.

While Acharya effectively critiques the contradictions inherent in neoliberalism regarding informal economies, he could further enrich his discussion by incorporating Chatterjee’s (2008) concept of the ‘political society’. This concept explains how marginalised groups in India negotiate with state authorities through everyday practices and informal arrangements. Chatterjee’s framework offers a nuanced way to understand how street vendors, rather than resisting the state outright, engage in transactional relationships with political actors to secure space and recognition. In fact, incorporating Chatterjee’s insights would have strengthened Acharya’s discussion of how informal workers tactically navigate power structures.

Furthermore, while the book makes important contributions, its engagement with broader debates on urban informality in India could have been more extensive. Acharya’s focus on street vendors in Kolkata provides a valuable case study, but his analysis would have been richer if situated within the broader field of comparative urbanism. Scholars such as Robinson (2016) argue for the importance of looking beyond singular urban experiences to develop a comparative framework that captures the diversity of urbanism. In the book, Acharya touches on how neoliberal policies impact public spaces, but a more explicit comparison with cities like Mumbai or Delhi – where similar tensions between informality, state intervention and urban renewal play out – would have offered more comprehensive insights. For example, Mumbai’s hawker zones and Delhi’s informal retail hubs present unique challenges and governance models that could have added depth to his analysis.

Additionally, another area where the book could have delved deeper is the marketisation and privatisation of public spaces. While Acharya touches on this issue, his analysis lacks explicit engagement with contemporary debates on urban renewal and gentrification that displace informal workers, as documented by scholars like Tang and Benjamin (2021). A more comprehensive critique on how urban development projects prioritise modernisation at the expense of informal economies would enhance the book’s relevance in the discourse on neoliberal urbanism.

Finally, while Acharya effectively engages with the ‘right to the city’ framework, its practical application in the Indian context remains underexplored. Providing more detailed examples of how street vendors and other informal workers organise and resist neoliberal policies would clarify the possibilities for inclusive urban governance. Discussions on the role of street vendor unions or grassroots movements advocating for the rights of informal workers would reinforce the notion that informality is central to urban functioning, particularly in the Global South.

In conclusion, Markets, Capitalism and Urban Space in India: Right to Sell is a significant contribution to the study of urban informality and neoliberalism in India. By engaging with key debates such as urban informality, comparative urbanism and neoliberalism, Acharya’s book achieves a comprehensive critique of neoliberal urbanism in India. However, it would benefit from deeper engagement with scholars like Roy (2005), Chatterjee (2008) and Tang and Benjamin (2021). Incorporating comparative insights from other Indian cities and a more thorough analysis of political mobilisation would further enhance the book’s relevance to both academia and urban policy. Overall, Acharya’s work marks an important step towards understanding the complex interactions between informal economies and neoliberal policies in urban India.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank the Indonesia Endowment Fund for Education (LPDP) for providing funding assistance for completing the author’s doctoral studies and for supporting the writing of this article.

References

Bhan G (2019) Notes on a Southern urban practice. Environment and Urbanization 31(2): 639–654. Crossref; Web of Science; Google Scholar

Chatterjee P (2008) The politics of the governed: Reflections on popular politics in most of the world. Contemporary Political Theory 7: 114–119. Crossref; Google Scholar

Hamnett C (2020) Is Chinese urbanisation unique? Urban Studies 57(3): 690–700. Crossref; Web of Science; Google Scholar

He S, Lin GC (2015) Producing and consuming China’s new urban space: State, market and society. Urban Studies 52(15): 2757–2773. Crossref; Web of Science; Google Scholar

Lefebvre H (1996) Writings on Cities. Translated and edited by Kofman E, Lebas E. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Google Scholar

Robinson J (2016) Comparative urbanism: New geographies and cultures of theorizing the urban. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 40(1): 187–199. Crossref; Web of Science; Google Scholar

Roy A (2005) Urban informality: Toward an epistemology of planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 71(2): 147–158. Crossref; Web of Science; Google Scholar

Tang W-S, Benjamin S (2021) Land as situated spatio-histories: A dialogue with global urbanism. In: Lancione M, McFarlane C (eds) Global Urbanism: Knowledge, Power and the City. London: Routledge, pp.284–290. Crossref; Google Scholar

Yeh AG, Yang FF, Wang J (2015) Economic transition and urban transformation of China: The interplay of the state and the market. Urban Studies 52(15): 2822–2848. Crossref; Web of Science; Google Scholar

Cite this book review