This paper notes the prominence of self-help groups (SHGs) within current anti-poverty policy in India, and analyses the impacts of government- and NGO-backed SHGs in rural North Karnataka. It argues that self-help groups represent a partial neoliberalisation of civil society in that they address poverty through low-cost methods that do not challenge the existing distribution of power and resources between the dominant class and the labouring class poor. It finds that intra-group savings and loans and external loans/subsidies can provide marginal economic and political gains for members of the dominant class and those members of the labouring classes whose insecure employment patterns currently provide above poverty line consumption levels, but provide neither material nor political gains for the labouring class poor. Target-oriented SHG catalysts are inattentive to how the social relations of production reproduce poverty and tend to overlook class relations and socio-economic and political differentiation within and outside of groups, which are subject to interference by dominant class local politicians and landowners.

This article analyses why informal labourers working 'at the margins' of global production networks lack 'structural' and 'associational' power. It does so in order to better understand potential changes in their material and political conditions, and as part of broader calls to put labour at the centre of development studies. The article focuses on rural-based labourers in south India who work relatively invisibly as agricultural labourers, informal factory workers, and on the construction sites of a 'global city' (Bangalore). It deploys a three-way labour control regime framework that encompasses i) the macro-labour control regime, which is ultimately defined by capitalist relations of production, and characterized in India by particularly high levels of informality (precario us and largely unregulated work) and segmentation (due to the fragmentary impact of caste); ii) the local labour control regime, which refers to how class relations in specific places are shaped by patterns of accumulation and work (themselves shaped by differences in agro-ecology, irrigation, and remoteness from non-agricultural labour markets), distributions of classes and castes, and the uneven presence of the state; and iii) the labour process, which is increasingly marked by forms of 'remote control' marshalled by labour intermediaries. Debate on the macro-labour control regime and on the labour process is well established, but little has been said about local labour control regimes, which are newly defined here and discussed in terms of differences between 'wetland/circulation zones' and 'dryland/commuting zones'. The article identifies locations

Gatekeeping is taken here to mean the act of channelling formal and informal resources between the state and society for private economic and political gain. Based upon fieldwork in Karnataka, India, this paper argues that whilst traditional forms of control over the labouring class have been eroded, gatekeeping increasingly allows the dominant class to exert a more subtle form of political control, which in turn facilitates processes of accumulation. Rather than equalizing political power and control over public resources, heightened levels of fiscal decentralization to village councils (gram panchayats) have increased levels of gatekeeping, which both provides a significant share of the politically active dominant class's income and forges new patterns of labouring class dependence upon the dominant class. This heightens socioeconomic differentiation and reproduces the latter's political dominance despite the loosening of labour-related ties. In addition, it is argued that although a minority of gatekeepers are from the labouring class, their inclusion facilitates dominant class accumulation rather than their own upward mobility.The paper stratifies gatekeeping in order to locate it amongst the totality of social relations between and within classes, which collectively produce processes of accumulation, differentiation and domination within society.The paper concludes that although the forms taken by extra-economic aspects of capital's control over rural labour have been altered during the erosion of traditional forms of dominance, they remain highly significant and are increasingly so in the fieldwork area in a context of decentralized governance.

a School of Business and Management, Queen Mary university of london, uK; b department of economics, School of oriental and african Studies (SoaS), university of london, uK; c School of international development, university of east anglia, Norwich, uK; d department of international relations, university of Sussex, Brighton, uK ABSTRACTThis article argues that class relations are constitutive of development processes and central to understanding inequality within and between countries. Class is conceived as arising out of exploitative social relations of production, but is formulated through and expressed by multiple determinations. The article illustrates and explains the diversity of forms of class relations, and the ways in which they interplay with other social relations of dominance and subordination, such as gender and ethnicity. This is part of a wider project to revitalise class analysis in the study of development problems and experiences.

This article argues that the labouring class poor are best able to access social protection when they have sufficient economic autonomy from their village's dominant class to allow them to act politically. To this end, the article analyses the capacity of associations of scheduled caste female labourers in rural Karnataka (south India) to access social protection through collective action. It identifies links between modifications of the material conditions of the labouring class, their capacity to take political action and the social and institutional forms that reflect the social relations of production. Three important variables are identified: the extent of economic autonomy from the dominant class, support from class‐conscious social movement organizers and the political configuration of the local state. The former variable in particular is something that the mainstream social protection policy agenda fails to prioritize.