The British Journal of Sociology 2014 Volume 65 Issue 4

Capital and time: uncertainty and qualitative

measures of inequality

Laura Bear

Abstract
This review compares Piketty and Marxs approaches to capital and time in order
to argue for the importance of qualitative measures of inequality. These latter
measures emphasize varying experiences across classes and through history of
uncertainty and insecurity. They explore how the social rhythms of capital pro-
foundly affect the ability to plan a life-course. Quantitative measures such as those
used by Piketty that focus on the amount of capital that accrues through time
cannot capture such important phenomenon. This is especially because their cal-
culations rest on absolute amounts of capital recorded in formal state statistics.
Their limits are particularly revealed if we consider issues of: informal labour,
social reproduction, and changing institutional forms of public debt. If we are to
build the inter-disciplinary rapprochement between social science and economics
that Piketty calls for it must be through asserting the value of qualitative measures
of insecurity and its effects on decision making. These are important to track both
at the macro-level of institutions and at the micro-level scale of human lives. It is,
therefore, through emphasizing the existing strengths of both anthropology and
history that we can meet Pikettys important challenge to make our scholarship
relevant to current political and social debates.
Keywords: Capital; time; temporality; qualitative research; informal labour; social
reproduction; public debt; Marx

Quantitative analysis and a qualitative supplement

In Pikettys impressive book we experience the passage of times arrow on a

grand scale.1 Eras such as those of: US Slavery; the French Ancien Regime;
British nineteenth century empires; and the current rise of the super-manager
are meticulously parsed by Piketty for evidence of recurrent economic laws.

Bear (Department of Anthropology, London School of Economics and Political Science) (Corresponding author email: l.bear@
lse.ac.uk)
London School of Economics and Political Science 2014 ISSN 0007-1315 print/1468-4446 online.
Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden,
MA 02148, USA on behalf of the LSE. DOI: 10.1111/1468-4446.12107
640 Laura Bear

His work is a magisterial, eloquent argument for an historical economics that

is highly critical of mathematical modelling. He describes such simulations as
his disciplines childish passion and as based on highly ideological specula-
tion (2014: 32). Instead he calls for a rapprochement with the social sciences in
the pursuit of knowledge from the study of the longue dure. Motivated by his
admiration for Febvre, Levi-Strauss, Braudel, Bourdieu, Heritier and Godelier
he accomplishes an extraordinary task creating a space for cross-disciplinary
conversation about the historical dynamics of wealth distribution and the
relations between social classes. He makes this dialogue possible because he
accepts from the start that: statistics are social constructions; that all discus-
sions of inequality have a political valence; and that mathematical certainties
should not be a substitute for open democratic debate. Giving ground to the
long-standing sociological and anthropological critiques of economics, he then
challenges us all to reject turf wars and orthodoxies in order to ask funda-
mental questions and try to answer them (2014: 33).
Inspired by this provocation in my review I will ask some foundational
questions about our approaches to capital and time. I will question Pikettys
assumption that time is only a container for social action, which passes and
allows patterns of capital accumulation to emerge. Instead I will argue that
various forms of capital accumulation affect social experiences of time and
thereby generate different kinds of inequality. Quantitative analysis, such as
that of Piketty, reveals patterns through time, while the more qualitative
approach I take demonstrates contradictions and uncertainties in the experi-
ence of social time. I will argue that this qualitative analysis supplements our
quantitative understanding of inequality for two reasons. First, attention to
rhythms in capital can capture aspects of micro-level inequality that are less
visible in Pikettys measures of amounts of capital. In particular it allows us to
track experiences of precariousness among informalized workers and prob-
lems surrounding social reproduction as these unfold during the life-course.
Secondly at the macro-level, it enables us to trace historical transitions in the
institutional forms of capital that have made a difference to the degrees of
uncertainty experienced by people. Or to put my argument more simply, I will
suggest that a quantitative focus on amounts of capital accruing as times
arrow passes is not sufficient, but needs to be supplemented with a qualitative
focus on forms of capital and their associated rhythms in time. As I make my
arguments it will become clear that Pikettys proposals for reducing inequality
through progressive taxation, financial transparency, and a global tax regime
cannot solve the inequalities a qualitative analysis makes visible.

The metamorphosis of capital in time: Piketty versus Marx

A good point of departure to begin consideration of the divergences between

quantitative and qualitative approaches I wish to highlight is to compare
London School of Economics and Political Science 2014 British Journal of Sociology 65(4)
 Capital and time 641

Piketty and Marx. Piketty is generous to Marx in his text. He writes with
critical admiration of his politically motivated attempts to track the effects of
capitalism on the basis of limited statistical sources. He also confirms and
nuances Marxs claim that as time passes capitalists acquire infinitely increas-
ing amounts of capital, a mechanism that will result in a decreasing rate of
profit potentially leading to their demise. Piketty agrees that in periods of low
productivity and population growth capitalists will accumulate vast amounts of
capital and gain smaller rates of return on this or else their share of income will
devour all of national income with destabilizing political consequences (2014:
228). However, despite this sympathy, Piketty treats capital in a fundamentally
distinct manner from Marx. This becomes clear in his chapter on The Meta-
morphosis of Capital, which could not be more different from Marxs
approach. In this Piketty traces the evolution of national capital stock through
time. This national capital stock is a quantitative amount of resources that can
be broken down into: public capital; private capital; and different varieties of
capital (agricultural, financial, buildings, domestic, foreign etc.). Central to
Pickettys historical story are changes in the composition of capital that reveal
the degrees of rentier income versus income from labour in society. Also key
to his measurement of inequality is private capitals annual share of national
income. Piketty treats capital as if it were a resource that can be measured like
an asset and national account sheets are treated as if they were exactly the
same as corporate or household account sheets. He suggests that,
regardless of whether we are looking at the accounts of a company, a nation
or the global economy the associated output and income can be decom-
posed as the sum of income to capital and income to labour. (2014: 46)
Capital is a thing, a quantitative asset, not a form of value produced by a social
relation in time. In fact Piketty specifically excludes all human aspects of
capital in order to make his calculations arguing that capital is the sum total of
non-human assets that can be owned or exchanged on some market (2014:
203). Any clash of temporalities that exists is a phenomenon of divergence
between short-term and long-term trends of accumulation (2014: 286). All of
this makes his approach fundamentally different from that of Marx. In
Pikettys book the metamorphosis of capital through history becomes an
account of the relationship between various assets and their valuation in
formal market institutions. This certainly gives us an important vista onto
possessions accumulated or lost by various classes over time; but this has to be
supplemented in order to generate accurate analysis, politics and policy. We
also need to understand the social relations and experiences that are untrace-
able in these quantitative measures.
In contrast to Piketty, when Marx writes of the metamorphosis of capital in
Capital Volume 2 (1992) he takes us inside the rhythms of capital and their
associated unequal social relations. Capital is never treated as an asset. Instead
British Journal of Sociology 65(4) London School of Economics and Political Science 2014
642 Laura Bear

the mystery of how it can be accrued through social relations that enable the
circulation of value is explored. Marx, of course, shows that central to this
process are the: abstract measurement of time; the payment of wages for
labour and attribution of market value to objects (Postone 1993). When capital
is analysed in this manner it leads to a diachronic analysis of circulation as it is
experienced. Following the metamorphosis of capital means tracing the
conflictual social rhythms and inequalities generated by the movement of
capital from money to productive to commodity capital and back to money
again with the generation of surplus value along the route. Here the conflict of
temporalities is quite different from that in Pikettys work. Conflict exists at
the level of experience. It is generated from the divergent rhythms of the
institutions of: production, consumption, finance, social reproduction and
governance. The key point here is that all of these institutions contain amounts
of capital, but the qualitative effects of the capital within them are different.
The rhythms of certain forms of finance, for example, as in derivatives trading
can be very short-term and volatile (LiPuma and Lee 2004). Government
institutions vary historically in their commitment to the short or medium term
and can stabilize or exacerbate the rhythms of financial markets (Guyer 2007;
Bear 2015). Consumer credit can support long-term strategies of social mobil-
ity through status display or act as a punitive kind of short-term extraction
(ODougherty 2002; Han 2012). Different kinds of public debt strategies also
have distinct rhythms from the fast repayment of austerity policy to the sus-
pension of payment relationships (Blyth 2013; Bear 2015). Forms of social
reproduction within kin-groups, household and community introduce other
lifecycle rhythms into the use of capital (Yanagisako 2002; James 2012, 2014).
Marx argued that the tension is highest between financial markets and
production. Marx, and many scholars since him, have suggested that finance
capital runs parallel with the production process but is not subject to its social
rhythms (Harvey 1989; Zaloom 2004). It is a dead weight that increases over
time and comes to govern the rhythms of production. The contradictions
generated by this are peculiarly manifest in credit. Credit advanced is an extra
legal title to the future additional production of the society that the capitalists
hold in reserve, yet this credit only ensures that money capital is available not
that society will be productive in the future.2 Acts of labour and forms of social
reproduction by capitalists, financiers and workers attempt to mediate these
conflicts in the rhythms of social time. It is in the varying ability of different
class and status groups to chart a life-course and a future for their family,
community and society within the constraints of these conflictual institutional
rhythms that needs to be measured qualitatively. Numerical measures of
amounts of capital frozen at a moment in time cannot reveal these dimensions
of inequality. Only an ethnography of conflicts and uncertainty at the scale of
the human life-course can reveal the effects of capital in motion as a social
relation (Bear 2014).
London School of Economics and Political Science 2014 British Journal of Sociology 65(4)
 Capital and time 643

I am certain that Piketty would encourage a productive conversation with

such an ethnography. In his critique of mathematical models of time prefer-
ences in savings behaviour he argues that,
these choices depend on the social and institutional environment, family
strategies and pressures and limitations social groups place on themselves, in
addition to individual psychological and cultural factors. (2014: 361)
Given his subtle approach here I am sure he too would want to develop a
companion qualitative measurement of inequality. I will now suggest that such
a measure is particularly important because there are specific, increasingly
significant forms of inequality that remain invisible to Pickettys methodology.
These are associated with informalized, precarious work and the labour of
social reproduction. As I address these topics I will draw on recent anthropo-
logical work on these themes, including my own on austerity policy in India.

Precariousness, uncertainty and inequality: informalized labour and

social reproduction

Picketty is clear that the national accounts and inheritance records that
provide his data are a social construct in perpetual evolution that only
provide an estimate not a mathematical certainty of inequality (2014: 58).
Yet his choice to track quantities of capital from national records occludes
aspects of inequality that are invisible and unaccountable to state institutions.
What is missing, because of the nature of his sources, is not just the total
quantity of capital as he suggests, but the unsanctioned and unrecognized
social relations that contribute to the accumulation of wealth in society. In
particular, informalized labour and the unpaid labour of social reproduction
are invisible because they do not at any point appear in the national assets or
acquire a formal market value. These are highly problematic omissions. How
can we as social scientists take part in public debate about inequality or suggest
even utopian policy if we dont acknowledge vast arenas of social activity from
which wealth is directly and indirectly derived?

The precariousness of informal labour

Taking the unsanctioned relations of informalized labour first, it is clear from
the figures provided by international organizations that legally unregulated
casual work makes up half to three quarters of non-agricultural employment in
medium to low income countries (International Labour Organization 2012). In
Europe, one in six employees were in the informalized sector in 20082009
(Hazans 2011). Informality rates as a percentage of the extended total labour
force are around 11per cent in Scandinavian countries, 15per cent in Eastern
British Journal of Sociology 65(4) London School of Economics and Political Science 2014
644 Laura Bear

Europe, 16 per cent in Western Europe and 28 per cent in Southern Europe
(Hazans 2011).This is just the tip of the historical iceberg as unregulated casual
labour has long dominated in the global economy (Breman 2013; Tsing 2009).
For many years anthropologists studying this phenomenon have argued that
informalized labour will not and cannot disappear in spite of promises from
international organizations such as the world bank to bring it out of the
shadows and release its inherent entrepreneurial productivity (Mitchell 2007;
Dunn 2008). This is because it is a consistent source of profits gained through
cheap labour often supported by forms of social discrimination along lines of
race and ethnicity. It is certainly true that in India (where my research has been
over the past twenty years and in which informality is at the level of 83.6 per
cent) economic reform and liberalization have led to increases in precarious
work even in states such as Gujerat that are cited as economic success stories
(Bear 2013; Breman 1996, 2004, 2010; Cross 2010; De Neve 2009; Harriss-White
2003; Hirway and Shah 2011; Struempell and Parry 2008). Given the scale of
informalized work, and the myriad types of exploitation it involves, it needs to
be central to our analysis of, and solutions for, inequality. 3
Informalized work is also important because it directs our attention to a key
qualitative vector of inequality that separates out classes from each other. This
is the ability to plan and live a life-course with varying degrees of security.4 The
degree of differentiation between social classes along a scale of precarious to
secure is directly related to the institutional forms of capital and their various
rhythms in time. In my own work, for example, I have traced how a combina-
tion of short-term austerity policy and shareholder capitalism lead to highly
precarious livelihoods and dangerous working conditions in shipyards con-
structing for international and state clients in India (Bear 2013). It would be
very interesting to extend these ethnographic insights on informalized labour
into new qualitative measures of the ability to be secure and the various effects
of insecurity on decision making during the life-course. Yet if we followed
Pikettys approach we would not be able to investigate any of these issues. This
is because informalized work remains entirely occluded as a quantitative
source of wealth and a qualitative source of inequality. Not surprisingly this
means that Pikettys ameliorative proposals do not engage at all with this vast
social reality.

The uncertainty of social reproduction

Turning now to the unrecognized impact of forms of social reproduction on
accumulation and inequality; it is striking that the insights of even feminist
economists are entirely absent from Pikettys account. The issues of gender,
family structure, household financial strategies, kinship, education and
childcare are all offstage. When they are touched on it is in passing. For
example, Piketty makes the general claim that the state provision of good
London School of Economics and Political Science 2014 British Journal of Sociology 65(4)
 Capital and time 645

quality education is a key driver for the reduction of inequality and mentions
that women are over-represented in the bottom 50 per cent of earners. For
an anthropologist or a sociologist this absence is very difficult to compre-
hend. For several decades the study of relational and intimate economies has
shown that patterns of accumulation are centrally structured by household
strategies and kinship practices (Zelizer 2012). In fact we can confidently
state as a general principle now, to paraphrase Yanagisako, that capitalism is:
a social and historical formation shaped by the pursuit of status by social
groups; driven by sentiments and desires as forces of production; and is
formed from various kinds of kinship and social reproduction. A large
amount of research has also suggested that current forms of inequality have
been particularly affected by alterations in the labour of social reproduction.
Alongside the well-known internationalization of finance capital since the
1980s there has been an internationalization of the burden of social repro-
duction through forms of migrant or outsourced labour between countries
(Constable 2008; Truong 2000). Contemporary research has highlighted
another crucial facet of inequality that is increasing in the present: a growing
uncertainty in the process of social reproduction, which is now being funded
through increasingly extractive debt relations. For example James and Han
have explored the growing use of credit in South Africa and Chile in order
to meet family obligations and sustain social status in the next generation
(Han 2012; James 2012, 2014). Yet for Piketty these significant processes are
off-stage because of his reliance on the quantitative measures of national
accounts. Once again it is only through attention to the qualitative and tem-
poral dynamics of capital that we can fully understand inequality in the past
and present. Moving now from the micro-level of households and the life-
course to the macro-level this point is made even clearer if we turn to an
assessment of Pikettys approach to public debt.

Qualitative transitions in forms of capital: the example of public debt

Public debt for Piketty is a mathematical figure that stands on a balance

sheet that lists public assets and liabilities. As such it can be calculated in the
same way for any place and time. When Piketty moves from these figures to
social relationships he again follows a quantitative logic. He tracks public
debt as a relation between individuals who lend to the government and who
are repaid from fiscal revenues. When seen in this manner public debt
appears to have always been the same kind of institution in which, debt
often becomes a backhanded form of redistribution of wealth from the poor
to the rich, from people with modest savings to those with the means to lend
to the government (2014: 566). Therefore Pikettys solution for debt crises in
the Eurozone or the global south is simply to find a way to equitably repay
debts through progressive national or global taxation or to discern a safe
British Journal of Sociology 65(4) London School of Economics and Political Science 2014
646 Laura Bear

way to raise inflation so that the monetary amounts owed are no longer so
large.
However public debt is not an amount. It is a political and social relation-
ship between a government, lending agents and citizens. As such it can take
many different historical forms. Each of these create a quite different
balance between market and state institutions thereby contributing in dis-
tinct ways to levels of inequality. Take, for example, the current period
defined by sovereign debt crisis in the Eurozone and elsewhere. Usually con-
temporary crises are explained as the result of overspending by governments
and/or a reduced tax base due to recessions related to the 2008 banking
crisis. However their origins lie in a change in the concept and practice of
state debt that emerged globally from the 1980s. In this period public debt
has moved steadily out of the control of national governments who used it
for political aims and public projects. Instead, it has become a fiscal mecha-
nism handled by technocrats and designed to support the growth of primary
and secondary financial bond markets. This world-wide transformation was
brought about through the growth of official lending (by organizations such
as the World Bank and IMF) and of financial bond markets in sovereign
debt. Across the world government budgets are now managed by technocrats
who seek to: meet the demands of official lenders; to foster market mecha-
nisms; and the growth of private wealth. In their hands economic policy is
also conducted in relation to: international ratings agencies; interest repay-
ments; and the volatile short-term rhythms of financial markets. Therefore
we are not just living in an era of more public debt. Instead public debt has
taken on a new qualitative form. It has changed from a long-term political
investment in the future of the nation into a short-term extractive financial
mechanism. This form of public debt has a dramatic effect on economic
policy within bureaucracies often turning them into agents for the produc-
tion of inequality. For example, as I have shown in India (in the context of
the Kolkata Port Trust on the Hooghly River) it has led to the growth of
informalized labour for the state through public private partnerships; the
development of a disordered and decaying public infrastructure and the
increasing extraction of value from labour and resources. Most of all it gen-
erates state institutions focused on the short-term raising of revenues rather
than on the maintenance of long-term relations with their citizens. These
institutions often follow, perhaps even amplify, the short-term rhythms of
financial markets and private capital rather than counteracting these. It is by
taking inspiration from Marxs qualitative understanding of the metamor-
phosis of capital that we can trace such transformations. Pikettys quantita-
tive totals do not reveal this process, nor can his progressive income tax solve
the contemporary problem of public debt. A resolution can only be found in
a political and ethical questioning of, and alteration, in the relationships
between the state and the market.
London School of Economics and Political Science 2014 British Journal of Sociology 65(4)
 Capital and time 647

A quantitative and qualitative rapprochement?

Piketty ends his book with a stirring assertion that, refusing to deal with the
numbers rarely serves the interests of the less well-off (2014: 577). His impres-
sive, wide-ranging scholarly account demonstrates exactly why all social sci-
entists need to engage with quantitative measures of inequality. Certainly it is
only by dealing with numbers that we can fully pursue stimulating conversa-
tions with economists such as Piketty in both academic and public contexts.Yet
in taking on quantitative perspectives we should not abandon our existing
disciplinary attention to the macro-level qualitative forms of capital and
micro-level social experiences of its rhythms. Instead, we need to pursue
harder the development of qualitative measures of varying degrees of uncer-
tainty and insecurity and their effects on decision making. In addition we need
to bring fully into view the sources of wealth and experiences that are not
visible in official numbers, such as those of informal workers and the labour of
social reproduction. It is from a critical engagement in which each discipline
stands its ground that the analysis of, and resolutions for, inequality can
emerge. My review has been a small attempt to move towards such a restless,
critical rapprochement.
(Date accepted: September 2014)

Notes

1. On the imagery of times arrow in social Donegan, Jayaseelan Raj, Vikramaditya

and economic theory see Matt Hodges 2008.
2. K. Marx 1992:468.
3. Important research on this theme is being
led by Alpa Shah and Jens Lerche in the
Programme of Research in Inequality and
Poverty at the Department of Anthropology,
LSE. This includes the work of Richard
Axelby, Dalel Benbabaali, Brendan
Thakur, Lewis Beardmore and Thomas
Herzmark.
4. Research on this significant emerging
topic is being carried out by my doctoral
students in the Department of Anthropol-
ogy, LSE: Lexi Aisbitt, Becky Bowers, Julia
Huang, Jovan Lewis and Fernande Poole.

Bibliography

Bear, Laura 2013 The Antinomies of Audit:
Opacity, Instability and Charisma in the
Economic Governance of a Hooghly
Shipyard, Economy and Society 42(3): 375
97.
Bear, Laura 2014 Doubt, Conflict and
Mediation: An Anthropology of Modern
Time, Journal of the Royal Anthropological
Institute 20(S1): 330.
British Journal of Sociology 65(4)
Bear, Laura 2015 Navigating Austerity: State
Debt Policy and Popular Economies on a
South Asian River, Stanford: Stanford Uni-
versity Press.
Blyth, Mark 2013 Austerity: the History of a
Dangerous Idea, Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Breman, Jan 1996 Footloose Labour:
Working in Indias Informal Economy,
London School of Economics and Political Science 2014
648 Laura Bear
Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Breman, Jan 2004 The Making and Unmak-
ing of an Industrial Working Class: Sliding
Down the Labour Hierarchy in Ahmedabad,
India, New Delhi: Oxford University Press
India.
Breman, Jan 2010 Indias Social Question in
a State of Denial, Economic and Political
Weekly XLV(23): 4246.
Breman, Jan 2013 A Bogus Concept: a
review of Guy Standing The Precariat: A
New Dangerous Class, New Left Review 84,
NovDec: 1308.
Constable, Nicole 2008 The Commodifica-
tion of Intimacy: Marriage, Sex, and Repro-
ductive Labor, Annual Review of
Anthropology 38: 4964.
Cross, Jamie 2010 Neo-Liberalism as Unex-
ceptional: Economic Zones and the Every-
day Precariousness of Working Life in South
India. Critique of Anthropology 30(4): 355
73.
De Neve, Geert 2009 Power, Inequality and
Corporate Social Responsibility: the Politics
of Ethical Compliance in the South Indian
Garment Industry, Economic and Political
Weekly XLIV(22): 6371.
Dunn, Elizabeth 2008 Standards and Person
Making in East Central Europe in Aihwa
Ong and Stephen Collier (eds) Global
Assemblages: Technology, Politics and Ethics
as Anthropological Problems, Oxford: Wiley
Blackwell.
Guyer, Jane 2007 Prophecy and the Near
Future: Thoughts on Macroeconomic, Evan-
gelical, and Punctuated Time, American
Ethnologist 34(3): 40921.
Han, Clara 2012 Life in Debt: Times of Care
and Violence in Neo-liberal Chile, Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Harriss-White, Barbara 2003 India Working:
Essays on Society and Economy, Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Harvey, David 1989 The Condition of Post-
Modernity, Oxford: Blackwell.
Hazans, Mihails 2011 Informal Workers
Across Europe: Evidence from 30 Countries,
Discussion Paper 5871, Bonn: Forschung-
sinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit.
London School of Economics and Political Science 2014
Hirway, I. and Shah N. 2011 Labour and
Employment Under Globalisation: The
Case of Gujarat, Economic and Political
Weekly XLVI (22): 5765.
Hodges, M. 2008 Rethinking Times Arrow:
Bergson, Deleuze and the Anthropology of
Time, Anthropological Theory 8(4): 399
429.
International Labour Organisation 2012
Statistical Update on Employment in the
Informal Economy.
James, Deborah 2012 Money-go-round:
Personal Economies of Wealth, Aspiration
and Indebtedness, Africa 82(1): 2040.
James, Deborah 2014 Money from Nothing:
Indebtedness and Social Aspiration in South
Africa, Stanford: Stanford University
Press.
Li Puma, Edward and Lee Ben 2004 Finan-
cial Derivatives and the Globalisation of
Risk, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Marx, Karl 1992 Capital: Volume 2, London:
Penguin Classics.
Mitchell, Timothy 2007 The Properties of
Markets in Donald Mackenzie, Fabian
Munieza and Lucia Siu. Do Economists
Make Markets?: On the Performativity of
Economics, Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
ODougherty, Maureen 2002 Consumption
Intensified: The Politics of Middle Class
Daily Life in Brazil, Durham, NC.: Duke
University Press.
Piketty, Thomas 2014 Capital in the Twenty-
First Century, Harvard: Harvard University
Press.
Postone, Moishe 1993 Time, Labour and
Social Domination, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Struempell, Christian and Parry, Jonathan
2008 On the Desecration of Nehrus
Temples: Bhilai and Rourkela Compared,
Economic and Political Weekly 43(19):
4757.
Truong, T. 2000 Gender, International
Migration and Social Reproduction: Impli-
cations for Theory, Policy Research and Net-
works in Katie Willis and Brenda Yeoh
(eds) Gender and Migration, London:
Edward Elgar.
British Journal of Sociology 65(4)

Tsing, Anna 2009 Supply Chains and the
Human Condition, Rethinking Marxism: A
Journal of Economics, Culture and Society
21(2): 14876.
Yanagisako, Sylvia 2002 Producing Culture
and Capital: Family Firms in Italy, Princeton,
N.J.: Princeton University Press.
British Journal of Sociology 65(4)
Capital and time 649
Zaloom, Caitlin 2004 The Productive Life
of Risk, Cultural Anthropology 19(3): 365
91.
Zelizer, Viviana 2012 How I Became an
Economic Relational Sociologist and What
Does that Mean?, Politics and Society 40(2):
14574.
London School of Economics and Political Science 2014
Copyright of British Journal of Sociology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.