Monopoly in Indian Industry: An Approach

• Published in: Economic and political weekly 1972-02, Vol.7 (5/7), p.385-392
• Main Author: Aurobindo Ghose
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Business structures; Capitalism; Commercial banks; Corporations; Economic theory; Financial investments; Growth Experience; Investment companies; Monopoly; Private banks; Share capital
• ISSN: 0012-9976; 2349-8846

Any approach to the study of monopolistic behaviour in Indian industry - and especially attempts at constructing a theory underlying such behaviour - must base itself squarely on the reality of today's Indian economy. The approach must base itself also on such premises about behaviour, for instance the maximising motive, which themselves reflect the material reality. Unhistorical and/or non-materialistic approaches would fail to discern the distinguishing characteristics of monopolistic behaviour in Indian industry. Such a study will thus attempt to emphasise (a) monopoly capital, the highest form of capital in Indian industry today and (b) the business group, the most representative unit of monopoly capital. The study will be incomplete if it is not undertaken in relation to the distinguishing characteristics of the Indian economy today. These characteristics are principally three. First, India remains an underdeveloped economy basically still in the process of growth. Secondly, the role of the State is significant, in terms of both direct State ownership of the means of production and use of State economic policies for promoting and regulating private economic activity. Thirdly, foreign capital is significant in India, quantitatively and qualitatively, and indigenous monopoly is itself linked with it. All these characteristics require to be appropriately accounted for in a theory of behaviour of Indian monopoly. This is the task of a larger study of which this paper forms only an initial part. [The author is grateful to S Ganguli for his guidance and also to Ashwani Saith, R L Narayan, Ajay Tankha and other members of the Political Economy Seminar, Delhi, for their comments and suggestions. The author alone is responsible, however, for any errors that remain.]