MAINS Current Affairs includes Neo-colonialism & Inclusion of women in India’s green economy

World History

1. Neo-colonialism

Context: The reported US military action and “transition” rhetoric in Venezuela has revived the debate on neo-colonialism—control without formal annexation—through force, sanctions, and political engineering.

About Neo-colonialism:

What it is?

• Neo-colonialism is indirect domination of formally sovereign states through economic leverage, debt, trade dependency, corporate control, political engineering, and security influence, ensuring policy outcomes favourable to external powers. Unlike classical colonialism, it works without direct territorial rule, but with real control over choices.

Origin of neo-colonialism:

• Post-independence “control without colonies”: After 19th–20th century decolonisation, major powers sought to retain influence via markets, finance, and security ties rather than governors and flags.
• Cold War logic: Superpowers supported “friendly” regimes, coups, and security establishments to prevent rival ideological blocs—often subordinating democratic choice to strategic interest.
• Global capitalism + institutions: International finance, conditional lending, and commodity-linked trade structures deepened dependence for states reliant on exports, capital inflows, and technology.

Neo-colonialism in South America:

1. Commodity-export dependence as a policy trap:

• • Structural reliance: Many economies remain locked into single-commodity exports (copper, oil, gas), limiting diversification.
  • Chile (1970s): The 1974–75 global copper price downturn sharply reduced revenues, facilitating austerity and externally aligned restructuring under the Pinochet regime.
  • Venezuela (post-2014): The oil price crash triggered hyperinflation and fiscal collapse, illustrating how global commodity cycles can overwhelm domestic policy autonomy.

2. Foreign corporate extraction and profit outflows

• • External dominance: High-value segments of mining and hydrocarbons historically controlled by foreign firms, with profits repatriated abroad.
  • Bolivia (2003 Gas War): Mass protests against foreign-linked gas export plans led to political upheaval and reassertion of resource sovereignty.
  • Chile (1971): Nationalisation of copper under Salvador Allende targeted US firms (Anaconda, Kennecott) to curb rent extraction and restore state control.

3. Regime and policy shaping through covert influence

• • Cold War interventions: External powers influenced internal political outcomes to secure favourable economic regimes.
  • Chile (1973): The coup against Salvador Allende followed covert intervention and economic pressure, reversing redistributive and nationalist policies.
  • Brazil (1964): The military coup against João Goulart, amid US backing signals, inaugurated decades of security-state governance and labour repression.

4. Security leverage and intervention as discipline

• • Transnational repression: Security cooperation substituted for formal colonial control.
  • Operation Condor (1970s): Coordinated intelligence and repression across Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia and Brazil, with documented external awareness and support.
  • Outcome: Sovereignty persisted formally, but domestic political choices were constrained by external security alignments.

5. Debt–development trap and externally steered macro-policy

• • Crisis trigger: The 1982 Latin American debt crisis exposed dependence on foreign capital.
  • IMF conditionality: Countries like Brazil and Argentina entered repeated stabilisation programmes prioritising creditor confidence over social spending.
  • Long-term impact: The “lost decade” saw suppressed growth, welfare compression, and reduced policy space for industrial transformation.

Challenges associated with neo-colonialism:

• Erosion of sovereign policy space: When Argentina defaulted in 2001, IMF-linked austerity and creditor pressure narrowed policy choices to spending cuts and privatisation, triggering mass protests and five presidents in two weeks—showing how market discipline can override democratic mandates.
• Inequality and elite capture: In Chile under Pinochet (post-1973), externally supported market reforms created macro-stability but entrenched wealth concentration; by 2019, inequality-driven protests erupted, exposing how elite–external alignments hollow out social contracts.
• Democratic backsliding through coercive politics: The 1973 Chile coup and the 1964 Brazil coup illustrate how engineered regime change delegitimised electoral politics, normalising authoritarian governance under the pretext of “stability” and anti-communism.
• Resource curse reinforced externally: Venezuela’s oil dependence—deepened through decades of export-led extraction—made the state hostage to global price cycles; the post-2014 crash collapsed welfare capacity, illustrating how mono-commodity models amplify vulnerability.
• Instability as a structural outcome: US intervention in Panama (1989) removed Noriega but left long-term institutional fragility; similarly, sanctions-heavy pressure on Venezuela has produced migration waves and polarisation rather than smooth political transition.

Modern, present-day neo-colonialism:

• Sanctions and financial chokepoints: Control over payment networks, dollar liquidity, and banking access can throttle economies without troops—economic warfare by administrative means.
• Supply-chain and technology dependence: Dependence on foreign platforms, chips, defence systems, and surveillance tech can translate into strategic compliance and data vulnerability.
• Debt conditionality and ratings power: Credit ratings, bond spreads, and conditional loans discipline states—policy is shaped by “investor confidence” more than citizen needs.
• Corporate arbitration and treaty locks: Investment treaties and arbitration can deter regulation (environment, labour) because governments fear costly litigation or capital flight.
• Information and narrative influence: Media ecosystems, platforms, and disinformation can delegitimise governments or movements, shaping “consent” for external pressure.

Implications

• For South America: Higher likelihood of political churn, securitisation, and economic volatility as sovereignty becomes contested through sanctions/interventions and counter-alignment.
• For global order: Normalising force or coercive transition weakens UN Charter norms and encourages other powers to mimic spheres-of-influence behaviour.
• For development: Long-term planning suffers—states oscillate between models under pressure, delaying industrial upgrading, welfare consolidation, and social trust.

Conclusion:

Neo-colonialism is the art of ruling without ruling openly—where flags are absent but leverage is everywhere. In South America, it has historically deepened dependency, inequality, and instability, even when justified as “order” or “democracy promotion.” Durable sovereignty needs diversified economies, regional cooperation, and rules-based restraint on coercion—military or financial.

Women and other issue/ Vulnerable Section

2. Inclusion of women in India’s green economy

Context: A recent CEEW report on ‘Building a Green Economy for Viksit Bharat’ has highlighted that India cannot achieve its USD 30 trillion economy target by 2047 without mainstreaming women into green value chains.

About Inclusion of women in India’s green economy:

What it is?

• The inclusion of women in India’s green economy refers to expanding women’s participation, leadership, and income generation across energy transition, circular economy, and bio-economy& nature-based solutions, ensuring that green growth is job-intensive, equitable, and productivity-enhancing rather than extractive or exclusionary.

Key trends:

1. High growth potential but low participation: Women’s labour force participation is 41.7% vs 78.8% for men, far below what is needed for India’s green growth trajectory.
2. Productivity dividend of gender diversity: A 1% rise in gender diversity in formal manufacturing correlates with ~2.9% higher labour productivity, underscoring economic gains from inclusion.
3. Energy transition: Women constitute ~32% of renewable energy workforce globally, but are clustered in administrative and non-STEM roles, with weak representation in engineering and site-based jobs.
4. Rooftop solar and RE deployment show sharp gender gaps: Indian rooftop solar firms report ~11% female workforce, with negligible participation in construction, commissioning, and O&M phases.
5. Circular economy: About 1.5 million women (≈49% of waste-pickers) work in early-stage waste collection and segregation, earning ~33% less than men in identical roles.
6. Caste–gender intersection intensifies vulnerability: A majority of women in waste and recycling value chains belong to Dalit and Adivasi communities, facing hazardous conditions, informality, and stigma.
7. Bio-economy &NbS: Women perform labour-intensive, unpaid or underpaid work (agroforestry, seaweed, bio-inputs), while value addition and formal jobs remain male-dominated.

Opportunities for women’s inclusion:

• Solar micro-enterprises: Solar automation in SHG units like Didi ke Papad lowers energy costs and drudgery, enabling women to scale production locally while raising incomes and enterprise sustainability.
• Drone-led green farming: Namo Drone Didi upgrades women from farm labour to precision service providers, improving input efficiency, cutting emissions, and embedding women in climate-smart agriculture.
• Nature-based livelihoods: Women-led millet revival integrates biodiversity restoration with solar-powered processing, strengthening climate resilience while securing women’s control over food value chains.
• Green factories: All-women EV plants like Ola’s Future factory mainstream women into advanced clean manufacturing, challenging gender norms and anchoring inclusion in core industrial activity.

Critical challenges associated:

• Technical exclusion: Despite higher STEM enrolment, women remain underrepresented in field-based solar roles due to safety, mobility limits, and male-dominated work cultures.
• Climate vulnerability: Heatwaves erase daily incomes of informal green workers like salt-pan farmers, exposing the absence of insurance and adaptive safety nets for women.
• Credit constraints: Lack of land titles and collateral blocks women-led green enterprises from accessing green finance, stalling scale despite policy intent.
• Market barriers: Women SHGs producing eco-goods struggle to enter formal supply chains due to weak certification, logistics, and digital market access.

Way ahead:

• Climate insurance: Parametric heat insurance converts climate shocks into predictable payouts, protecting women’s incomes without procedural delays.
• Skill-to-job pathways: Women-focused green certifications with placement linkages address both skills mismatch and hiring bias in renewable manufacturing.
• Asset ownership push: Women-registered rooftop solar under PM Surya Ghar strengthens asset control, credit access, and energy decision-making.

Conclusion:

India’s green transition will succeed only if it becomes women-led, not women-adjacent. Unlocking women’s productivity across energy, circularity, and nature-based solutions can convert climate action into inclusive growth and social transformation. A gender-responsive green economy is not welfare—it is core economic strategy.

Download Pdf | Study Material | Downloads | Daily Quiz  | FREE Youtube Videos