56 SOCIAL SCIENTIST in India, investment in the agricultural sector has been badly hit over the last few years.14 And the new policy regime would only perpetuate this dismal trend. It follows then that the possibility of the new policy regime consolidating a social support base for itself even among the surplus farmers remains limited. If the change in the nature of the policy regime is not accompanied by the consolidation of a new social base that would extend continuous support to it, then the State is likely to become more authoritarian. This has happened in several third world countries that have gone in for the Fund-Bank package; and this is by no means an unlikely prospect in India if the current transformation is allowed to run its course. 10. Nothing has been said so far about the growth prospects of the economy as a whole under the new regime, even though the chief argument advanced in its defence by its proponents focuses on the question of growth. As a matter of fact, however, the question of the social support base for the new regime is intimately connected with its growth prospects. An 'open-door* policy for metropolitan capital would succeed in raising the growth-rate of the economy only if metropolitan capital is willing to invest in it for meeting the global market (investment for meeting only the local market produces only de-industrialisation and no long-term growth). And whether this happens depends inter alia upon how stable the social conditions are. A State pursuing a policy regime that does not have much social support is unlikely to attract investment by metropolitan capital in magnitudes large enough to raise its future long-run growth-rate above what was achieved in the past. And unless this happens, given the economic sufferings of the working masses in the transitional period, social instability would continue. We have in short a vicious circle here. Many have argued that if the State through authoritarian measures can keep the working masses quiescent, then the vicious circle can be broken. The thesis that third world countries need dictatorships for their development may be odious but deserves examination. The basic flaw w(th it is not only that on its own reasoning it confuses between a necessary condition and a sufficient condition, but, more importantly, it fails to perceive that a dictatorship, in order to be stable, needs social support too. Even classical fascism which was in the narrowest of class interests, survived only by carving out a mass base for itself.15 The interests of metropolitan capital today, as articulated through Fund-Bank conditionalities, preclude the possibility of a significant social support base for the State which is why it would have to be authoritarian, and which is why, despite being authoritarian, it would be a failure in generating growth. What we are witnessing today and are likely to witness in the near future are