Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 10

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 48 of the 48 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Fossil neoliberalism and its limits: Governing coal in South India

Kumar, Mukul·2022·Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space
DOI 10.1177/25148486221099383
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Over the last three decades of neoliberalization, India's fossil fuel infrastructures have been transformed into an archipelago of coal-fired power plants and industrial ports in coastal zones. Drawing upon the case of coal infrastructures sited on the coast of south India, this article tracks processes of what I call “fossil neoliberalism”: the ways in which neoliberal modes of governance have transformed the state into an agent of market-based fossil fuel extraction. The article calls for attention to how particular technologies of governance—from disinvestment and initial public offerings to corporatized landlord ports—have reconfigured and respatialized, rather than reduced, the role of the state in processes of fossil fuel extraction. The article also analyzes how fossil neoliberalism, as an ensemble of market-based technologies of governance, is enabled by coastal zone illegalities and limited by political mobilizations.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/25148486221099383

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 18

  1. Anand N, 2020, The Hindu.
  2. Chandrasekhar C, 2002, The Market that Failed: Neoliberal Economic Reforms in India
  3. Coastal Resource Centre (CRC), 2016, Death by a Thousand Cuts: Report of Public Hearing Held On Loss of Ecology and Fisher Livelihoods in Ennore Creek
  4. Coehlo K, 2009, Economic and Political Weekly, 44, 358
  5. Department of Disinvestment, 2007, Disinvestment of Central Public Sector Enterprises
  6. Department of Public Enterprises, 2019, Public Enterprises Survey 2018–19
  7. Foucault M, 2010, The Birth of Biopolitics
  8. Goldman M, 2005, Imperial Natures: The World Bank and Struggles for Social Justice in an Age of Globalization
  9. Government of Madras, 1936, Report of the Madras Electricity Board Committee
  10. Investment Credit Rating Agency (ICRA) (2017) Kamarajar Port Limited. December 15.
  11. Kumar M, 2014, Economic and Political Weekly, 49, 46
  12. 10.17265/2159-5313/2016.09.003 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Li T, 2007, Anthropologica, 49, 275
  14. Luke N, 2022, Environment and Planning E
  15. 10.17265/2159-5313/2016.09.003 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Sharma C, 2011, Economic and Political Weekly, 46, 31
  17. Sundar N, 2008, Economic and Political Weekly, 43, 87
  18. 10.17265/2159-5313/2016.09.003 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

See all 10

Metadata

Authors
Kumar, M.
Affiliations
Department of Urban Planning and Public Policy, University of California, Irvine, USA
ORCID
Kumar, Mukul
Venue
Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2022-06-03
Volume
5
Issue
4
Pages
1853-1871
ISSN
  • 2514-8486
  • 2514-8494
DOI
10.1177/25148486221099383
Cited by
10
References
48
Language
en
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.