Search

This paper presents the findings of a research project that investigates the political and economic challenges that thwart reform of the fertilizer sector in India. Fiscal, distributional and environmental concerns make the case for such reform quite compelling. While international organizations have consistently advocated reforms in this sector and successive administrations have attempted changing policies for a decade and a half, actual change has been sporadic and incremental and has had little impact on the burgeoning fertilizer subsidy bill. This paper unpacks the international, national, state-level and societal factors that have shaped policy change. Predictably, the strong fertilizer lobby and representation by large farmers present substantial hurdle in initiating and implementing proposed changes. Domestic institutional factors such as bureaucratic politics and center-state politics have shaped the reform process substantially. Global hydrocarbon prices as well as pressure from international organizations play important roles in the reform process. However, the paper concludes that while the factors mentioned above are important, the strongest explanation for lack of reform is ideational. Based on the literature on discourse coalitions, this paper argues that two distinct coalitions with different world-views on the role of state and markets in the economic arena are engaged in the discourse on policy change. Policy change has not occurred because the coalition for change continues to be much smaller and less articulate about the benefits of change as compared to the coalition in favor of the existing policy framework. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The nonproliferation regime today is under siege from many directions. The US as the pre-eminent world power is currently engaged in efforts to modify the regime without striking at its fundamental principles. One such attempt was the July 2005 declaration signed by US President Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. While this agreement has mixed implications for the health of the nonproliferation regime, my research suggests that the overall impact is likely to be minimal. This is because states acquire or give up nuclear weapons because of regional and domestic political factors or due to fear of US intervention. I also find that the nonproliferation regime is unable in its present state to accommodate rising powers such as India, which desire to behave responsibly towards the world. In this period of regional power transition, the regime needs to be adjusted accordingly. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]