2 SOCIAL SCIENTIST exist (or India relate to specific products or transactions, but even these clearly show the importance of "transfer pricing" in the case of our economy. C P Chandrasekhar and Prabir Purkayastha make a pioneering effort at estimating the concealed outflow on account of "transfer pricing" for an industry as a whole, namely, the drug industry. Their finding that the concealed o'utflow was as much as 1.7 times the revealed outflow through dividends, royalties, technical fees, and so on, provides a timely and salutary reminder about the implications of multinational operations in India. Much has been written on the nature and implications of the IMF deal. A brief resume of this discussion is provided in the form of a review by Sanjaya Baru of a recent publication by the Government of West Bengal, The IMF Loan: Facts and Issues, which brings together N Ram's despatches for The Hindu, articles by seven economists on the loan and statements by Julius Nyerere of Tanzania and Michael Manley of Jamaica. One country which recently exercised its choice against borrowing from the IMF is Nicaragua where the hated Somoza dictatorship was overthrow by the Sandinista guerrillas. We publish an article by George Irvin on the Nicaraguan economy which is in the nature of a brief survey. One can question Irvin's presentation of the Nicaraguan experiment as a "model", as if the contours of 'economic policy there have already been determined for the foreseeable future; one can question in particular his conclusion that the mixed economy with private agriculture provides an optimum setting for economic development. Nicaragua is in the state of a flux and to idealize a particular moment of its changing situation is both premature and unhistorical. Nevertheless, the article is useful for providing information and provoking discussion. The idealization of the peasantry as an undifferentiated? homogeneous and durable class is a major hallmark of Populism. The Russian Narodniks had consequently opposed the Marxists assigning the leading role in the democratic revolution to the proletariat. Neo-Populism shares the basic premises of Populism, but differs from it in that the latter at least had a revolutionary project and highlighted feudal exploitation of the peasantry. Neo-Populism glosses over peasant differentiation, rarely mentions feudal and semi-feudal exploitation, and often even presents the primary contradiction as one between town and country. If Populism underestimated the role of the working class, neo-Populism is positively hostile to it. In the present context it is an ideology which can be used by the ruling classes for breaking the unity -of the working masses in town and country. An examination of its erroneous premises is of vital importance. Utsa Patnaik's article, ''Neo-Populism and Marxism", the second part of which is published in this issue, is a significant contribution in this context.