The escalation of Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ARTs) in India into a veritable fertility industry is the result of a multitude of reasons. This paper places the bio-genetic industry within the larger political economy framework of globalisation and privatisation, thus employing a framework that is often omitted from discussions on ARTs, but has direct and significant bearings on the ART industry in India. As markets for human organs, tissues and reproductive body parts experience unprecedented growth, the limits of what can or should be bought and sold continue to be pushed. As such, bodies have emerged as sale-worthy economic capital. Commercial flows of reproductive material create and deploy the division of the body into parts over which ownership is claimed, in the process following 'modern routes of capital' and raising issues of structural inequality.This paper presents a brief picture of India's fertility industry with specific focus on its ground-level operation, nature and growth. It aims to explore the industry dimensions of ARTs, by highlighting the macro picture of health care markets and medical tourism in India, the proliferation of the ART industry, market features such as the social imperative to mother, costs, promotion and marketing, unverified claims, inflated success rates, deals and offers, actors and collaborations in the field, and finally, the absence of standards. This paper presents findings from the research 'Constructing Conceptions: The Mapping of Assisted Reproductive Technologies in India', by Sama, a Delhi-based resource group working on gender, health and rights. This research was conducted from 2008 to 2010 in the three states of Uttar Pradesh, Orissa and Tamil Nadu in India, and is one of the first of its kind, highlighting unethical medical practices and making a case for the regulation of the ART industry. As such, it forms a significant part of Sama's ongoing work on women and technologies, particularly policy-level advocacy.

No abstract

What are the rewards of paid care work for frontline health workers? I focus on India’s women community health volunteers, the largest such workforce in the world. Appointed since 2007 and numbering one million, these women are paid per-case incentives to connect the poor and marginalized to government-run health services. Using 14 months of ethnographic fieldwork in Delhi and Punjab, including 80 interviews, I find that women community health volunteers (called Accredited Social Health Activists or ASHAs) experience extrinsic rewards in paid care work. ASHAs earn not only from their official wages, but also from two unofficial streams: a) a boost of income from non-ASHA work and b) commissions from private hospitals. I also find that the intrinsic rewards ASHAs report—emotional gratification, relative autonomy, and skill-building—are co-constituted with extrinsic rewards; that is, they are tied to their earnings. This calls into question the “Love versus Money” binary, used to frame much of the discussion on care work. I argue instead for a “Love of Money” framing—that is, money as a reward and money as begetting other rewards. My findings highlight the significance of globalizing the empirical research on paid care work.

No abstract

In this paper, I analyze the experiences of the world's largest all-women community health workforce through the lens of liminality. Originally used to describe transition from one state to the other, the concept of liminality in the study of work and organizations can frame workers' experiences of being in-between established structures and roles in varying degrees, times, and/or places. India's ASHAs, or Accredited Social Health Activists, are community women at the frontlines of the state's health care provisioning. But the state does not categorize them as workers or employees. ASHAs are considered volunteers. Instead of salaries, they are paid task-based incentives. Based on 14 months of ethnographic fieldwork, including 80 interviews, I find that ASHAs' liminal occupational status as 'paid volunteers' produces conditions of chronic underpayment and control for them, further lowering their already low wages. This has implications for how we understand the gender wage gap. I argue that we need to consider not just how much women are paid, but how the payment is structured, and how that places marginalized women workers in relation to others in the workplace.Moving beyond whether liminality is a negative or positive experience, future research should delineate the conditions under which liminality is negative or positive.