Is Radhika Desai’s conclusion that the notions of “national bourgeoises, Third World and Development,

have become irrelevant in the current phase of US Imperialism” oversimplified?

Radhika Desai concludes her paper with the following line: “We must conclude that what has laid the
ideas, such as development and the Third World, to rest is the implausibility of the idea of ‘national
bourgeoisie’ in the current phase of US imperialism, not its objective difficulty, which is of much longer
standing.” This raises questions over her simplistic solutions to a very complex problem.

Firstly, the assertion that it is implausible to have a national bourgeoisie is heavily exaggerated. She
mentions that global forces, complex economic structures and world systems, and transnational economic
institutions have combined to remove the ‘national bourgeoisies’ from national arenas. However, there
are multiple examples of cultures and societies which have continued to prosper under a ‘national
bourgeoisie’ in a heavily globalized and interconnected world. China is one such example, with its
Chinese Communist Party, Central Committee, Politburo and Standing Committee forming the national
bourgeoisie and dictating the economic and development course of their country. Likewise, Russia with
its kleptocracy, Pakistan with its feudalistic patron-client political structure and India with its caste-
oriented social structure still form the basis of a national bourgeoisie. Indeed, national bourgeoisies
continue to dominate development- discourses in autocracies and weak democracies in a highly
globalized world.

Secondly, it is equally important to discuss US imperialism and its impacts on national bourgeoisies and
development agendas. A US-backed criteria for development has failed to yield results and inspire
national bourgeoisies in various countries. The failure of the world to achieve a US-defined development
in the form of Millennium Development Goals and Sustainable Development goals only shows the failure
of US imperialism. However, it is pertinent to raise questions of development advocated by China as
defined by its Beijing Consensus which runs antithetical to the US-backed Washington Consensus. The
inception of Belt and Road Initiative and its support in the upper echelons of society in around 50 Asian,
European and African countries reveal that the notions of a US- inspired development model has
transformed in recent times. The rise of alternative financial institutions such as Asian Investment and
Infrastructure Bank and infrastructure driven model such as BRI in Third World countries such as
Pakistan, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Central Asian Republics further shed light on the fact that a new model
of development has been accepted by ‘national bourgeoisies’ in various countries. Hence, Radhika
Desai’s conclusion is an oversimplified statement and needs to be revised by keeping the changing global
trends and development models in mind.