From Land to Capital to Information: Rethinking Development in the Age of the Digital Economy
As the world transitions from land-based economies to capital-driven systems and now to knowledge-centered paradigms, traditional development models are increasingly struggling to adapt to the rapid pace of technological advancements. This paper analyses how the emergence of the knowledge economy is fundamentally reshaping patterns of economic growth, social inequality, and structures of global governance, while simultaneously emphasizing the vast opportunities for more inclusive and equitable development alongside the inherent risks associated with the concentration of informational power in the hands of a few. By drawing upon the insights of Gandhian economic thought as well as contemporary critical analyses of capitalist systems, this work explores potential pathways toward establishing a more equitable, human-centered, and sustainable digital economy that prioritizes the well-being of all masses.
By Subhash Dhuliya
Abstract
The evolution of economic systems throughout history has been profoundly shaped by successive shifts in their primary resource—from land as the cornerstone in feudalism to capital as the engine in industrial capitalism and now to knowledge as the dominant force in the digital era. This paper explores how the emergence of the knowledge economy has redefined the very essence of development, transforming modes of production, labor dynamics, and mechanisms of global governance in unprecedented ways.
While digital technologies have undeniably spurred remarkable innovation and economic growth, they have unfortunately not resolved the fundamental contradictions inherent in capitalism: persistent inequality, widespread exclusion, and the ever-increasing concentration of power. Instead, the commodification of data and the establishment of informational control have given rise to new hierarchies and dependencies, particularly affecting developing nations in the Global South.
The study argues that the knowledge economy’s immense potential for inclusive and sustainable development remains largely unrealized due to profound asymmetries in access, ownership, and governance structures. It concludes that achieving genuine development in the knowledge age necessitates the democratization of knowledge, the bridging of the digital divide, and the alignment of technological progress with human dignity and ecological well-being.
Keywords
Knowledge Economy; Development; Digital Inequality; Capitalism; Globalization; Technology and Development; Digital Divide; Post-Capitalist Transition; Sustainable Growth
The Evolution of Economic Systems
Every major economic transformation in human history has been distinctly defined by a pivotal shift in its primary resource—the foundational element that determines how value is created, distributed, and controlled across societies. During the feudal era, land served as the primary source of wealth, and power was exercised through ownership and control over territory and labor forces. The rise of industrial capitalism dramatically transformed capital—both financial and physical—into the key driver of growth and innovation. Today, we stand at the threshold of a new epoch, one where knowledge has become the most valuable and contested resource in the global landscape.
The shift from capital to knowledge has redefined not only the structure of economies but also the meaning of development itself in profound and multifaceted ways. Traditional development models built around industrialization, capital accumulation, and linear growth no longer capture the complexities of a digital, interconnected, and data-driven world. While the knowledge revolution has unleashed unprecedented opportunities for productivity, innovation, and connectivity, it has also deepened inequality and created new forms of dependency.
This paradox—of massive technological growth but persistent developmental failure—frames the central concern of the contemporary knowledge age.
The journey begins with Primitive Communism, where small, nomadic bands of hunter-gatherers lived a subsistence existence. The primary resource was nature itself, and with no significant surplus, private property was non-existent. Social relations were egalitarian, founded on kinship and shared survival.
Primitive Communism marked the earliest human societies, primarily hunter-gatherer communities. Without private property or class structures, resources were shared collectively to meet immediate needs. Tools were rudimentary, and production was labor-intensive, fostering egalitarian social bonds. The advent of agriculture around 10,000 BCE generated surpluses, enabling population growth and the emergence of hierarchies, which ended this phase.
The Agricultural Revolution, creating a consistent surplus, shattered this equilibrium. This surplus allowed for specialisation, trade, and, crucially, the concentration of wealth. This gave rise to Slavery, the first explicit class society. Human beings themselves became the primary capital—a means of production owned by a master. The economic logic was the direct, coercive extraction of labour.
In the late 20th century, a new phase began to emerge: the Information Society. While still operating within a capitalist framework, the primary resource is now information. Knowledge, data, networks, and intellectual property are the new drivers of value. Companies like Google and Meta do not own physical factories in the traditional sense; their asset is the information they harvest and analyse.
The Cracks in the Pillars: Socialism and Capitalism
The 20th century was defined by a grand ideological conflict between capitalism and its primary challenger: Soviet socialism. The collapse of the Soviet socialist system was not merely a geopolitical event but a profound economic failure. Its model of central planning, while initially successful at rapid heavy industrialisation, proved too rigid, inefficient, and unresponsive to consumer needs and technological innovation. It suppressed individual initiative and failed to create a “workers’ paradise,” instead devolving into a bureaucratic, authoritarian state. Its demise was seen as the ultimate triumph of capitalism.
But this triumph was short-lived. The crisis of the capitalist system is now undeniable. The 2008 global financial crisis exposed its inherent instabilities—financialisation, speculative bubbles, and rampant inequality.
The system that promised rising tides to lift all boats has instead produced yachts for a few while leaving millions stranded. Wealth is concentrated at a level not seen in the human history , precarious work is proliferating, and the social contract is breaking down. The question “is it also collapsing like the Soviet Model?” is apt. While a sudden, dramatic collapse is unlikely, a slow-burn crisis of legitimacy and functionality is already underway. The system is plagued by internal contradictions: it requires endless growth on a finite planet and needs mass consumption from a populace whose wages are stagnating.
Economic Systems and Development Models
Throughout history, the relationship between economic systems and development models has evolved in response to changes in technology, social relations, and production processes. In the feudal economy, development was tied to control over land and agricultural productivity. Surplus was extracted from the peasantry and redistributed within rigid hierarchies. The transition to capitalism marked a decisive shift—markets, capital accumulation, and industrial production replaced hereditary privilege as the engines of progress. Development came to be equated with industrialization, urbanization, and GDP growth.
The knowledge economy, however, redefines value creation. Knowledge and information—not physical goods—are now central to productivity. The ability to collect, process, and distribute knowledge determines competitiveness.
In theory, this transformation should democratize opportunity: knowledge and digital access can be replicated and shared at marginal cost, enabling developing nations to leapfrog stages of industrial development. In practice, however, the knowledge economy has intensified global inequality. Ownership of data, algorithms, and digital infrastructure is concentrated in a handful of multinational corporations, primarily based in advanced economies.
Economic systems range from centralized planning (socialism) to market-driven models (capitalism), with hybrids like Scandinavian social democracy balancing equity and innovation. Each system shapes development—improving living standards, education, and health—differently.
The Gandhian Economic Model
The Gandhian economic model offers a unique perspective. Mahatma Gandhi rejected heavy industrialization, which he saw as alienating and environmentally destructive. His philosophy of “production by the masses” emphasized decentralized, labor-intensive industries like khadi (hand-spun cloth) to promote self-reliance and rural empowerment.
Gandhi envisioned small-scale, sustainable economies where communities control production, reducing dependence on urban centers and global markets. In 2025, amid climate crises and overconsumption, Gandhian principles resonate in movements for sustainability and localism, advocating harmony over exploitation.
Mahatma Gandhi’s economic philosophy offers a counterpoint. Advocating “production by the masses” over mass production, Gandhi rejected heavy industrialization as alienating and environmentally destructive (Hind Swaraj, 1997). His model, centered on decentralized, labor-intensive industries like khadi, aligns with sustainable development principles, resonating in 2025 amid climate crises and calls for localism. (Unlike Marx’s revolutionary approach, Gandhi’s vision emphasizes moral and economic self-reliance, offering a critique of both capitalist and socialist excesses.
The Collapse of Socialist Alternatives and the Crisis of Capitalism
The collapse of the socialist system in the late twentieth century created an ideological vacuum. Capitalism, particularly in its neoliberal form, emerged as the unchallenged model of development. The dismantling of state controls, privatization, and market liberalization were promoted globally as pathways to modernization. International institutions like the IMF and World Bank reinforced this model, tying financial assistance to structural adjustment and fiscal austerity.
However, by the early twenty-first century, the contradictions of neoliberal capitalism became evident. The global financial crisis of 2008 exposed the fragility of a system built on financialization and speculative capital rather than productive investment. While technological innovation accelerated, wealth concentration reached extreme levels. The richest one percent now controls more wealth than the bottom half of the global population.
The crisis is not only economic but also philosophical. Capitalism’s traditional promise—that growth would eventually translate into development and social welfare—has failed. The “trickle-down” logic no longer holds in an era where digital monopolies extract value from knowledge flows without proportionate job creation or local reinvestment. The knowledge economy, instead of transcending capitalism’s limitations, has often amplified them, creating a new form of “digital capitalism” that thrives on surveillance, data extraction, and behavioral control.
Growth without Development: The New Paradox
The early twenty-first century is characterized by massive economic growth but limited development. Digital technologies have expanded global GDP, increased efficiency, and opened new markets. Yet, these gains are unevenly distributed. Developing countries, especially in the Global South, remain largely consumers rather than producers of digital technologies. Their integration into global digital value chains often reproduces dependency patterns reminiscent of colonial trade.
While knowledge technologies have boosted productivity, they have also led to job polarization—creating high-skill, high-income opportunities for a few and precarious, low-wage digital labor for many. Platform economies like Uber or Amazon epitomize this contradiction: they offer flexibility and scale but erode job security and social protection.
Moreover, the focus on economic growth continues to overshadow human development. Despite digital connectivity, poverty, inequality, and exclusion persist. The UNDP’s Human Development Reports consistently show that technological progress does not automatically translate into improvements in education, health, or equality. The paradox of the knowledge age is that societies are richer in information but poorer in equitable access.
This conflict highlights the crucial, often ignored, distinction between growth and development. Growth is a quantitative measure—an increase in GDP. Development is qualitative—an improvement in the well-being, health, education, and freedom of a population. The last few decades have seen massive growth in recent years but development failed to keep pace. The global GDP has soared, yet billions still live in poverty, inequality has skyrocketed, and our ecosystems are buckling under the strain. This proves that growth can, and often does, occur without genuine development.
Conflict Between Growth and Development
Economic growth (rising GDP) often outpaces development (improved quality of life). Since 2000, global GDP has nearly doubled, yet inequality and poverty persist. In 2025, extreme poverty affects 9.4% of the global population (700 million people), concentrated in fragile states plagued by conflict. Growth benefits elites disproportionately, with the richest 10% capturing 52% of global income. Meanwhile, access to education, healthcare, and clean water lags, fueling social unrest.
The divergence between economic growth and human development remains stark. Global GDP has nearly doubled since 2000, yet 9.4% of the world’s population (700 million) live in extreme poverty,
Global Economic Governance: WTO, World Bank, and IMF in Transition
The knowledge economy has also destabilized global economic governance. The World Trade Organization (WTO), built for an industrial age of goods and tariffs, struggles to manage digital trade, intellectual property, and cross-border data flows. Trade disputes increasingly revolve around digital taxation, data privacy, and platform regulation—issues that traditional trade mechanisms are ill-equipped to handle.
The World Bank and IMF, meanwhile, have sought to adapt their development models to the digital era by promoting “knowledge economies” and e-governance initiatives. However, their policy frameworks often remain anchored in neoliberal assumptions of market efficiency and privatization. The digital transformation has not altered the underlying global asymmetry: the North continues to dominate technological production, while the South remains dependent on imported software, platforms, and financial capital.
The growing irrelevance of these institutions in managing global crises—from climate change to digital inequality—reflects a deeper structural issue. Economic governance has not caught up with the realities of a knowledge-driven, networked world. As emerging powers like China and India assert greater influence, new multilateral frameworks such as BRICS and regional development banks are attempting to challenge the dominance of traditional Western institutions.
Today, the world economy is adrift. The new system is nowhere in sight. The post-WWII liberal order, underpinned by institutions like the World Trade Organization (WTO), is under siege. The rise of tariffs war and protectionism challenges the very principle of free trade that the WTO was built to promote. Its relevance is being questioned as major powers bypass it through bilateral deals and outright trade conflicts, signaling a retreat from globalisation.
Similarly, the role of the World Bank and IMF in the present scenario is deeply contested. Created to stabilise the global economy and finance reconstruction, they are often criticised as instruments of neoliberal policy, imposing austerity and market fundamentalism on developing nations through structural adjustment programs. In an era of climate crisis and pandemics, there are calls for them to radically reinvent themselves—to become lenders of last resort for climate resilience and genuine human development, rather than enforcers of fiscal orthodoxy.
The Knowledge Economy: Technology, Power, and Inequality
The knowledge economy represents both a continuity and a rupture with capitalism. At its core lies the commodification of knowledge—turning data, algorithms, and human behavior into economic assets. This new model, often termed “surveillance capitalism” (Shoshana Zuboff), monetizes human experience itself. Every online interaction generates knowledge that can be analyzed, sold, and used to shape consumption and behavior.
In this system, value is derived not from material production but from knowledge extraction and informational control. A small number of corporations—Google, Meta, Amazon, Microsoft, and Apple—dominate global digital infrastructure, concentrating knowledge power in ways reminiscent of feudal monopolies. Some scholars describe this as “information feudalism”, where ownership of knowledge replaces ownership of land as the basis of dominance.
For developing countries, this creates new dependencies. The lack of digital infrastructure, limited research capacity, and weak data protection regimes leave them vulnerable to informational exploitation. Instead of narrowing inequalities, the knowledge economy risks widening the global digital divide.
Interpreting the Knowledge Economy and the Crisis of Capitalism
Dorothy I. Riddle’s seminal work, Information Economy and Development (1986), conceptualized how knowledge could function as a productive resource with transformative potential for developing economies. Riddle argued that equitable access to knowledge was as essential to development as access to land or capital had been in earlier systems. Yet, she warned that without institutional mechanisms to redistribute informational power, developing nations would remain peripheral in the emerging global economy. Four decades later, her caution seems prophetic.
Capitalism faces significant challenges in 2025, including rising inequality, environmental degradation, and geopolitical tensions. Wealth concentration is stark: the top 1% globally own over 50% of wealth, while billions remain in poverty. Climate change, driven by industrial excess, threatens ecosystems, with 2025 seeing record-breaking heatwaves and economic losses estimated at $1.7 trillion annually. Social unrest and declining trust in institutions—evident in global protests, rise of the Right in Europe and populist movements across the globe —mirror the USSR’s pre-collapse turmoil.
Technology and Development in the Global South
For much of the developing world, the promise of the knowledge age lies in its potential to bypass traditional stages of industrialization. The spread of mobile technologies, e-governance, digital banking, and online education has indeed created opportunities for inclusion. Initiatives such as India’s Aadhaar identity system or Africa’s mobile money revolution demonstrate the transformative power of digital tools.
Yet, these advances coexist with deep structural problems. The digital divide—between urban and rural, rich and poor, educated and marginalized—remains vast. Access does not necessarily translate into empowerment. Many developing economies still rely on imported technologies and lack the capacity for indigenous innovation. The global value chains of the knowledge economy are dominated by multinational corporations that capture most of the profits.
In the emerging geopolitical landscape marked by the decline of U.S. power—exacerbated by inward-looking policies under the current administration—the Global South is increasingly asserting its agency in technological development. This shift toward a multipolar world order has empowered nations in Africa, Latin America, and Asia to challenge longstanding dependencies on Western tech ecosystems.
Through enhanced South-South cooperation, such as expanded BRICS initiatives and regional alliances, these countries are fostering collaborative innovation, sharing best practices in digital infrastructure, and reducing reliance on U.S.-dominated platforms. This assertiveness is evident in efforts to establish sovereign digital policies, including data localization laws and investments in local AI research, which aim to reclaim control over technological trajectories and align them with national development goals.
The Third Way
Emerging powers are not merely passive actors in the U.S.-China rivalry but are pursuing a “third way” in cyber governance, rejecting monolithic models to prioritize inclusive, context-specific solutions that bridge digital divides and promote equitable growth.
The rise of China as a technological behemoth further reshapes this scenario, offering both opportunities and challenges for the Global South. Via the Digital Silk Road under the Belt and Road Initiative, China has deepened its digital presence by funding telecommunications networks, 5G infrastructure, and smart city projects across developing regions, providing affordable alternatives to Western technologies, and accelerating digital inclusion. This has enabled countries to leapfrog outdated systems, with Chinese investments in areas like e-commerce and renewable energy tech driving economic diversification and job creation.
However, this growing influence prompts concerns over data sovereignty, potential surveillance exports, and new dependencies that could undermine local autonomy. As the U.S. retreats from multilateral engagements—evident in export bans on high-tech to China and a focus on unilateral dominance—the assertive Global South must navigate these dynamics strategically, leveraging Chinese partnerships while investing in indigenous capabilities to ensure that technological progress fosters sustainable, human-centered development rather than entrenching asymmetries.
To harness technology for development, countries of Global South must invest in human capital, digital literacy, and data governance. Equally important is the creation of inclusive institutions that ensure that technological gains translate into social welfare. Without such policies, digitalization risks becoming another phase of dependency rather than a path to genuine development.
Remembering Gandhian Perspectives: Mass Production by the Masses
Mahatma Gandhi’s economic philosophy offers a thought-provoking lens through which to assess the contradictions of modern development. Central to his vision was the concept of “mass production by the masses”—an economy rooted not in large-scale industrialization, but in decentralized, small-scale, and community-based production. Gandhi was critical of heavy industrialization, arguing that it often displaced human labor, concentrated wealth, and eroded social cohesion. His approach emphasized self-reliance (swadeshi), local knowledge, and the empowerment of rural communities.
In the context of the knowledge economy, Gandhian thought resonates with the need to democratize access to knowledge and technology. Just as he envisioned production that served local communities rather than distant elites, today’s challenge is to ensure that the knowledge economy benefits not just global corporations or urban centers, but the masses, including marginalized populations in developing countries. By integrating principles of equity, local empowerment, and human-centered production, the knowledge economy could realize the inclusive development Gandhi envisioned—where innovation, technology, and knowledge serve social welfare rather than merely generating growth or profit.
In this context, the relevance of the Gandhian Economic model becomes strikingly contemporary. Gandhi was profoundly against dehumanising, heavy industrialisation, which he saw as centralising wealth and power and destroying community. His vision of “mass production by the masses” advocated for a decentralised economy built around self-sufficient villages and cottage industries.
The charkha (spinning wheel) was not just a tool but a symbol of economic and political self-reliance. While criticised as romantic or impractical, Gandhi’s model offers a powerful critique of the alienation and ecological destruction of modern industrial society. It forces us to ask: development for whom, and at what cost? It places human dignity and sustainability at the core of the economic enterprise, a lesson that remains profoundly urgent.
The Indian Story
India, poised as the world’s fastest-growing major econog major economy with a projected GDP growth of 6-7% in 2025, stands at a critical juncture. India must overcome challenges of corruption, bureaucratic inefficiencies, and persistent rural poverty. Despite rapid urbanization and a burgeoning tech sector, 10% of India’s population lives below the poverty line. 80 crore (55%) are “dependent” on government rations and income inequalities are huge. Though in recent years because of high growth rate, millions of people were lifted from below puberty line.
Poverty measurement in India has evolved beyond traditional income-based metrics to include multidimensional aspects like access to health, education, sanitation, and nutrition. Recent estimates show sharp declines due to economic growth (7-8% GDP annually), schemes like PM Garib Kalyan Anna Yojana (free food for 80 crore), rural employment (MGNREGA), and digital inclusion.
What the Future Holds
India’s emergence as the world’s fourth largest economy by nominal GDP in 2025, surpassing Japan with an estimated GDP of ~$4.1 trillion, marks a historic milestone. This growth, driven by digital transformation, manufacturing under “Make in India,” and renewable energy investments, positions India to potentially overtake Germany by 2030 (projected GDP: $5.2 trillion).
However, sustaining this trajectory requires addressing structural issues: reducing dependency on rations through job creation, tackling inequality and enhancing rural infrastructure. Investments in education and skilling (e.g., National Education Policy 2020) aim to leverage India’s 550-million-strong youth workforce. Climate resilience and green tech adoption are critical. With strategic reforms, India could achieve upper-middle-income status by 2047, balancing growth with equity.
The Uncertain Future: Towards a Post-Capitalist Knowledge Society
The contradictions of the knowledge economy have sparked debates about the emergence of a post-capitalist order. Optimists see the potential for a more collaborative, decentralized, and knowledge-sharing society. Open-source movements, digital commons, and the growth of community-based innovation reflect efforts to democratize knowledge and challenge monopolistic control. Concepts like the circular economy, sustainable innovation, and inclusive digital governance signal attempts to reconcile growth with social and environmental goals.
However, the trajectory remains uncertain. Automation and artificial intelligence threaten to disrupt labor markets further. Algorithmic governance raises ethical and political concerns about privacy, manipulation, and bias. The knowledge economy has blurred the boundaries between public and private, local and global, human and machine.
Whether this transformation leads to emancipation or domination depends on how societies choose to govern technology and distribute its benefits. A more equitable and sustainable knowledge economy will require rethinking development beyond GDP, focusing instead on human capabilities, knowledge equity, and digital sovereignty.
The central challenge is not how much knowledge a society possesses, but how that knowledge is used—for whose benefit, under what rules, and toward what kind of future. The knowledge revolution, like the industrial one before it, can either entrench inequality or expand human freedom.
The Future of Human Development
The history of economic systems is the history of resource transformation. Feudalism organized society around land, capitalism around capital, and the contemporary world around knowledge. Yet, every transformation brings its own contradictions. The knowledge economy has revolutionized production, communication, and knowledge creation, but it has not resolved the fundamental tension between growth and development.
Human economic development reflects a trajectory of adaptation and contradiction, from primitive communism to the information society. The Soviet collapse and capitalism’s crises underscore the fragility of economic systems, exacerbated by the erosion of liberal democratic ideals and the rise of pragmatic governance. As trade wars, institutional limitations, and AI reshape the global landscape, addressing inequality and sustainability is paramount.
The failure of development to keep pace with technological progress reveals a deeper systemic flaw: economic value has been detached from human well-being. Unless the knowledge economy evolves into a model that prioritizes inclusion, equity, and sustainability, it risks reproducing the crises that brought industrial capitalism to its current impasse.
The future of development will depend on the ability of global society to democratize knowledge—to ensure that data and information serve as public goods rather than private monopolies. The challenge is to transform the knowledge revolution into a human-centered revolution, where technology empowers rather than excludes, connects rather than divides, and enriches not only economies but also lives.
The Economy in the Age of AI
The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence, machine learning, and other emerging technologies promises to transform economic structures in ways that are both profound and unpredictable. Automation may displace traditional labor, yet it also has the potential to create new industries, enhance productivity, and redefine work itself.
Knowledge and data, rather than physical capital alone, will increasingly determine competitive advantage, making the equitable distribution of digital resources a central challenge for development. Economies that can harness AI for innovation while ensuring social inclusion will likely set the benchmark for sustainable growth in the coming decades.
AI contributes $15.7 trillion to global GDP in 2025 but risks displacing 30% of jobs by 2030 (Goldman Sachs, 2025). It concentrates wealth among tech elites. 1847). Conversely, AI enhances productivity in agriculture and healthcare, offering development potential if regulated equitably. Gandhi’s emphasis on human-centered production could guide ethical AI integration.
At the same time, AI-driven decision-making raises critical questions about governance, ethics, and societal impact. Without careful regulation, technological progress could exacerbate inequality, concentrate power, and erode privacy. The future economy will depend not only on technological breakthroughs but on human choices about how these tools are applied. Aligning AI with inclusive development, environmental sustainability, and ethical standards will determine whether the knowledge economy fulfills its promise of prosperity for all or merely reinforces existing hierarchies.
Meanwhile, a seismic shift is underway that could redefine economics itself: the rise of new technologies and AI. Their impact is dual-edged. On one hand, AI promises a new wave of productivity, solving complex problems in healthcare, logistics, and resource management. It could free humanity from mundane labour. On the other hand, it poses a monumental threat of mass job displacement, not just in manufacturing but across white-collar professions. This could exacerbate inequality to sky-high. levels, creating a world with a small, ultra-rich tech elite and a vast, redundant population. The fundamental question of who owns the robots—and therefore the wealth they produce—will become the central economic and political battleground of the coming decades.
The Uncertain Future
We are navigating the uncertain future. The phases of economic development have brought us to a point of unprecedented material capacity coupled with profound existential risk. The capitalist model is in crisis, the socialist alternative collapsed under its own weight, and the Gandhian model, while morally compelling, remains a marginal vision rather was never adopted.
The path forward is not clear. It may involve a synthesis—a hybrid system that harnesses the innovative dynamism of markets while consciously prioritising social and ecological goals over mere profit. It may require rethinking the purpose of an economy: not infinite growth, but sustainable and equitable human flourishing.
Concepts like Universal Basic Income, the four-day work week, and balanced growth. are tentative sketches of what this new system might look like.
The challenge is not merely technical but profoundly philosophical and political. It demands a global conversation about values; about the kind of world, we want to inhabit. The uncharted seas ahead are rough, but they also offer the possibility of steering towards a destination that the previous phases of human economic development could never reach: a future that is truly prosperous, just, and sustainable for all.
References and Further Readings
Core Texts on Economic Theory and Knowledge Economy
Bell, D. (1973). The Coming of Post-Industrial Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting. New York: Basic Books.
Castells, M. (2010). The Rise of the Network Society (2nd ed.). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Drucker, P. F. (1993). Post-Capitalist Society. New York: HarperCollins.
Machlup, F. (1962). The Production and Distribution of Knowledge in the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Riddle, D. I. (Ed.). (1986). Information Economy and Development: Global Perspectives and Policy Implications. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Stiglitz, J. E. (1999). Information and the Change in the Paradigm in Economics. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zuboff, S. (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. New York: PublicAffairs.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
Phillips, K. (2013). Why Capitalism Failed: The Rise and Fall of the Global Market System. New York: Random House.
Gandhi, M. K. (1909/1997). Hind Swaraj or Indian Home Rule. Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House.
World Bank. (2021). World Development Report 2021: Data for Better Lives. Washington, DC: World Bank Publications.
United Nations Development Programme. (2024). Human Development Report 2024: Breaking the Gridlock: Reimagining Cooperation in a Polarized World. New York: UNDP.
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1848). The Communist Manifesto. London: Workers’ Educational Association.
North, D. C., & Thomas, R. P. (1973). The Rise of the Western World: A New Economic History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dobb, M. (1946). Studies in the Development of Capitalism. London: Routledge.
Castells, M. (1996). The Rise of the Network Society (Vol. 1 of The Information Age: Economy, Society, and Culture). Oxford: Blackwell.
Drucker, P. F. (1993). Post-Capitalist Society. New York: HarperBusiness.
Kotkin, S. (2001). Armageddon Averted: The Soviet Collapse, 1970-2000. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stiglitz, J. E. (2012). The Price of Inequality: How Today’s Divided Society Endangers Our Future. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
World Inequality Lab. (2022). World Inequality Report 2022. Paris: World Inequality Lab.
Gandhi, M. K. (1909). Hind Swaraj. Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House.
Kumarappa, J. C. (1951). Economy of Permanence. Rajghat: Sarva-Seva-Sangh Prakashan.
Schumacher, E. F. (1973). Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered. London: Blond & Briggs.
Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (1990–present). Human Development Report (annual series). New York: UNDP.
Stiglitz, J. E. (2002). Globalization and Its Discontents. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Rodrik, D. (2011). The Globalization Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economy. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Raworth, K. (2017). Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century
Myrdal, G. (1968). Asian Drama: An Inquiry into the Poverty of Nations (Vols. 1–3). New York: Pantheon Books.
Marx, K. (1847). The Poverty of Philosophy. Paris: Progress Publishers (English translation, 1955).
WTO (World Trade Organization). (2025). Annual Report on Global Trade Tensions. Geneva: WTO Publications.
Author
Prof. Subhash Dhuliya is a researcher, educator, and commentator on global affairs, specializing in media, culture, and international communication. He is the Founder-Director of Newswriters.in and has previously served as Vice Chancellor of Uttarakhand Open University. He has been Professor at IGNOU, IIMC, and CURAJ. Earlier in his career, he worked in journalism as Assistant Editor with Times Group (Sunday Times and Navbharat Times) and Chief Sub-Editor at Amrit Prabhat (Amrit Bazar Patrika Group). Prof. Dhuliya holds a Master’s degree in Economics, and his academic interests extend to Development Communication. He is a regular contributor on issues related to global affairs and economic issues.
Image: Unsplash
