Neoliberalism, Geopolitics, and the Political Economy of Fundamentalism in Bangladesh: A Dialectical and Dependency-Theoretical Analysis

Neoliberalism, Geopolitics, and the Political Economy of Fundamentalism in Bangladesh: A Dialectical and Dependency-Theoretical Analysis

S K Das & A. Borhan Centre for Social Research (CSR), Bangladesh

Abstract

The simultaneous expansion of neoliberal globalization and the resurgence of religious fundamentalism constitutes one of the most significant paradoxes of contemporary world politics. Conventional modernization theories predicted that economic development, industrialization, urbanization, and scientific progress would gradually diminish the social and political significance of religion. Contrary to these expectations, the contemporary era has witnessed the persistence and, in many cases, the intensification of religious identities and fundamentalist political movements. This article argues that neoliberal capitalism and religious fundamentalism should not necessarily be viewed as opposing forces. Rather, under specific historical conditions, they may emerge as interconnected responses to the same structural transformations associated with global capitalism. Drawing upon Marxist political economy, Gramsci’s theory of hegemony, dependency theory, and contemporary critiques of neoliberalism, the article develops a theoretical framework for understanding the growth of political Islam in Bangladesh. It argues that neoliberal restructuring generates social fragmentation, economic insecurity, and institutional vacuums that religious organizations frequently occupy through welfare provision, educational networks, and moral authority.

Building on this framework, the article pays particular attention to the institutional mechanics of penetration: how banks, hospitals, schools, madrasas, NGOs, and charitable foundations affiliated with fundamentalist movements operate not merely as service providers but as instruments of psychological embedding, patronage-based employment, and manufactured dependency among the population. These institutions simultaneously perform four interlocking functions — they (i) create everyday points of contact through which religious authority becomes psychologically normalized in people’s lives; (ii) generate employment, contracts, and livelihood opportunities preferentially channeled to followers, cadres, and party members, thereby converting economic survival into political loyalty; (iii) produce structural dependency, whereby beneficiaries’ access to credit, healthcare, education, or income becomes conditional on continued affiliation; and (iv) secure the financial self-sustainability of the movement itself, insulating it from electoral or state pressure. Consequently, religious fundamentalism should be analyzed not merely as a theological phenomenon but as an organizational, economic, and ideological force embedded within broader processes of capitalist development. The Bangladeshi case demonstrates how dependent integration into the global economy, geopolitical pressures, and transformations of state-society relations may contribute to the expansion of religious institutions and political Islam.

1. Introduction

One of the most enduring assumptions of twentieth-century social theory was that modernization would inevitably lead to secularization. Classical sociologists and modernization theorists argued that economic development, industrialization, urbanization, bureaucratization, and scientific rationality would progressively erode the social significance of religion (Weber, 2002; Berger, 1967). Religion was expected to retreat into the private sphere as modern institutions increasingly governed social and political life.

Yet the empirical realities of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries have challenged this expectation. Despite unprecedented technological advances, the expansion of global markets, and increasing economic integration, religious identities have remained politically significant across much of the world. Indeed, many regions have experienced the resurgence of religious movements, including various forms of Christian nationalism, Hindu nationalism, Buddhist nationalism, and political Islam (Roy, 2004; Bayat, 2013).

The rise of political Islam has been particularly significant in the Muslim world. From North Africa to Southeast Asia, Islamic movements have emerged as influential social and political actors. These developments have generated substantial scholarly debate concerning the relationship between religion, modernity, globalization, and capitalism (Kepel, 2002; Roy, 2004).

Bangladesh represents an especially important case for examining these issues. Since the 1980s, the country has undergone extensive neoliberal restructuring characterized by export-oriented industrialization, privatization, market liberalization, financial integration, and increasing dependence upon global markets (Lewis, 2011; Devine, 2013). During the same period, religious organizations, Islamic educational institutions, Islamic banking networks, charitable foundations, and faith-based social movements have expanded significantly (Riaz, 2010).

At first glance, these developments appear contradictory. Neoliberalism is often associated with market rationality, economic modernization, and globalization, whereas religious fundamentalism is frequently portrayed as a reaction against modernity. However, such interpretations rest upon a simplistic opposition between modernity and religion. This article argues that the relationship between neoliberal capitalism and religious fundamentalism is considerably more complex — and that this complexity is best understood not at the level of doctrine, but at the level of institutions: the banks, hospitals, schools, and welfare bodies through which fundamentalist movements physically and psychologically embed themselves in everyday life.

The central thesis advanced here is that neoliberal restructuring generates forms of insecurity, inequality, social fragmentation, and institutional withdrawal that create conditions conducive to the expansion of religious organizations. Religious movements often provide social services, collective identities, moral certainty, and organizational networks that compensate for deficiencies generated by market-centered development. Consequently, religious fundamentalism should be understood not only as an ideological phenomenon but also as a social and economic response to structural transformations within global capitalism.

The article proceeds in five stages. First, it reviews relevant literature on modernization, secularization, neoliberalism, political Islam, and dependency theory. Second, it develops a theoretical framework integrating Marxist political economy, Gramscian hegemony, and dependency theory. Third, it applies this framework to Bangladesh. Fourth, it examines in detail the institutional mechanisms — banks, hospitals, schools, and NGOs — through which fundamentalist movements penetrate everyday life, generate patronage employment, and secure financial self-sustainability. Finally, it explores broader implications for understanding contemporary relations between capitalism, religion, and political power.

2. Literature Review

2.1 Modernization Theory and Secularization

Classical modernization theory viewed religion as a declining force in modern societies. Weber (2002) argued that rationalization and bureaucratization would contribute to the “disenchantment” of the world. Similarly, Berger (1967) predicted that modernization would reduce the public significance of religion by promoting pluralism and rationality.

These expectations influenced much of post-war social science. Development was often conceptualized as a transition from traditional to modern social structures, with secularization regarded as an inevitable consequence of modernization (Parsons, 1964).

However, subsequent developments challenged these assumptions. Berger (1999) later acknowledged that the world had become “as furiously religious as it ever was.” Scholars increasingly recognized that modernization does not necessarily eliminate religion. Instead, modernity often transforms religious expression and creates new forms of religious mobilization (Casanova, 1994).

Political Islam represents one of the most important examples of this phenomenon. Rather than disappearing under conditions of modernization, Islamic movements have frequently expanded in contexts characterized by rapid economic and social change (Kepel, 2002; Roy, 2004).

2.2 Neoliberalism and Social Transformation

Neoliberalism emerged as the dominant policy paradigm after the economic crises of the 1970s. According to Harvey (2005), neoliberalism seeks to reorganize society around principles of market competition, privatization, deregulation, and individual responsibility.

Although neoliberal reforms are often justified in terms of economic efficiency, critics argue that they produce profound social consequences. Harvey (2005), Stiglitz (2002), and Peck (2010) contend that neoliberal restructuring frequently increases inequality, weakens labor protections, and reduces public welfare provision.

Polanyi’s (2001) concept of the “double movement” remains particularly relevant. Polanyi argued that the expansion of market relations often generates social dislocation, prompting counter-movements that seek protection from market forces. Religious organizations may be understood as one such response to social disruption generated by market expansion.

Recent studies have demonstrated that neoliberalism frequently transforms not only economic institutions but also social identities and forms of collective action (Brown, 2015). These transformations create fertile conditions for ideological movements that promise social cohesion and moral certainty.

2.3 Political Islam and Religious Fundamentalism

The literature on political Islam is extensive and diverse. Early interpretations frequently viewed Islamic movements as reactions against modernization and Westernization (Gellner, 1992). More recent scholarship has challenged such views.

Roy (2004) argues that contemporary political Islam is itself a product of globalization. Rather than representing a simple return to tradition, Islamic movements frequently employ modern organizational forms, communication technologies, and transnational networks.

Bayat (2013) similarly emphasizes the need to understand Islamic movements within contemporary political and economic contexts. He argues that political Islam should be analyzed as a dynamic social phenomenon rather than as a static religious ideology.

These perspectives suggest that religious fundamentalism cannot be understood solely through theological analysis. Instead, its emergence must be situated within broader processes of social transformation, state restructuring, and capitalist development.

2.4 Dependency Theory: A Brief Orientation

Dependency theory emerged as a critique of modernization theory during the 1960s and 1970s, arguing that underdevelopment is not a stage preceding development but a condition structurally reproduced through unequal incorporation into the global capitalist system (Frank, 1967; Amin, 1974; Cardoso & Faletto, 1979). World-systems theorists extended this argument by describing a hierarchical global economy organized into core, semi-peripheral, and peripheral zones (Wallerstein, 2004). A fuller application of this framework to Bangladesh’s development trajectory is developed in Sections 3 and 5 below, where it is integrated with historical materialism, Gramscian hegemony, and Barkat’s political economy of fundamentalism.

Research Gap. Although substantial scholarship exists on neoliberalism, political Islam, and dependency theory, relatively little research has examined their interconnections within a unified analytical framework — and still less has examined the concrete institutional mechanisms (banking, healthcare, education, employment) through which this interconnection is reproduced in everyday life. Existing studies often treat religious fundamentalism primarily as a cultural or ideological phenomenon. Conversely, analyses of neoliberalism frequently neglect the role of religious institutions in mediating social transformations. This article seeks to bridge these literatures.

3. Theoretical Framework: Historical Materialism, Hegemony, Dependency, and the Political Economy of Fundamentalism

The theoretical framework developed in this article integrates four complementary intellectual traditions: historical materialism, Gramscian theory of hegemony, dependency theory, and Abul Barkat’s political economy of fundamentalism. Together, these approaches provide a comprehensive framework for understanding the relationship between neoliberal capitalism, state transformation, and the growth of political Islam in Bangladesh.

Historical Materialism. Historical materialism begins from the proposition that social consciousness is shaped by material social relations and historically specific modes of production rather than existing independently of them (Marx & Engels, 1976). Ideas, values, and ideologies emerge within particular economic and social contexts and therefore cannot be understood apart from the material conditions that sustain them. Marx and Engels (2002) argued that capitalism continuously revolutionizes social relations; contemporary neoliberalism intensifies these tendencies through privatization, deregulation, labor-market flexibility, and the commodification of social life (Harvey, 2005). Religious movements therefore emerge not outside history but within historically specific social transformations produced by capitalism itself.

Gramsci and Hegemony. Antonio Gramsci’s theory of hegemony extends this analysis by demonstrating that domination is maintained not solely through coercion but through the construction of consent (Gramsci, 1971). Schools, universities, media organizations, religious institutions, charities, and cultural associations participate in the production of ideological leadership within civil society. Religious organizations frequently function as important hegemonic institutions. Through educational activities, welfare provision, charitable work, and moral leadership, they contribute to the formation of collective identities and social consent.

Dependency Theory and Peripheral Capitalism. Dependency theory provides the international dimension of this analysis. Bangladesh’s economic trajectory reflects many features of dependent capitalist development: export-oriented industrialization, labor migration, foreign borrowing, and integration into global commodity chains have generated substantial economic growth while simultaneously reproducing dependence upon external markets and international financial institutions (Lewis, 2011; Devine, 2013). These contradictions generate social insecurities and institutional pressures that influence ideological and political developments. Religious organizations often acquire significance because they respond to social needs that neither markets nor state institutions adequately address.

Abul Barkat and the Political Economy of Fundamentalism. The most direct contribution to understanding the Bangladeshi context comes from the work of Abul Barkat, whose pioneering studies represent one of the first systematic attempts to analyze religious fundamentalism through the lens of political economy rather than purely ideological or theological categories (Barkat, 2007; Barkat, 2015; Barkat, 2018). Barkat argues that religious fundamentalism possesses a distinct economic base composed of financial institutions, educational establishments, welfare organizations, NGOs, business enterprises, charitable foundations, healthcare facilities, publishing networks, and media organizations. These interconnected institutions generate economic resources while simultaneously reproducing ideological influence and organizational capacity. According to Barkat, fundamentalism should therefore be understood as a socio-economic system rather than merely a set of religious beliefs.

Dialectical Political Economy. Taken together, these four theoretical traditions suggest that neoliberal capitalism and religious fundamentalism should not be treated as mutually exclusive or inherently antagonistic phenomena. Rather, they may emerge from the same historical conditions and become interconnected through complex processes of social transformation. Neoliberal restructuring generates insecurity, inequality, and institutional withdrawal; these developments create opportunities for religious organizations to expand their influence through welfare provision, educational activities, and community support, which in turn produce cultural authority, social legitimacy, and political influence. This relationship is neither one of simple opposition nor one of complete harmony — it is fundamentally dialectical.

4. Neoliberal Restructuring, Social Fragmentation, and the Crisis of Collective Security

The global expansion of neoliberalism since the late twentieth century has fundamentally altered the relationship between state, market, and society. Neoliberalism is not merely a collection of economic policies but a comprehensive political project aimed at reorganizing social life around market principles (Harvey, 2005). Privatization, deregulation, fiscal austerity, labor-market flexibility, and the reduction of state welfare functions have become central features of this transformation.

Proponents of neoliberalism argue that market liberalization promotes economic efficiency, innovation, and growth. However, a substantial body of scholarship suggests that neoliberal restructuring often generates profound social consequences, including rising inequality, labor insecurity, weakened social protection, and the erosion of collective institutions (Harvey, 2005; Stiglitz, 2002; Brown, 2015).

Karl Polanyi’s concept of the “double movement” remains particularly relevant for understanding these developments. According to Polanyi (2001), the expansion of market relations tends to disembed economic activity from social institutions, generating social dislocation and insecurity. Societies subsequently develop protective responses aimed at defending social cohesion and collective security.

In many developing countries, neoliberal reforms have weakened the state’s capacity to provide welfare services, education, healthcare, and employment protection. As public institutions retreat, citizens increasingly seek alternative sources of security and social support. Religious organizations often emerge as significant providers of these functions.

Bangladesh reflects many of these global trends. Since the 1980s, economic reforms encouraged by international financial institutions have promoted export-oriented industrialization, privatization, and market liberalization (Lewis, 2011; Devine, 2013). While these policies have contributed to sustained economic growth, they have also generated significant social transformations.

Rapid urbanization, labor migration, changing family structures, informal employment, and widening socioeconomic disparities have altered traditional forms of social organization. These developments have produced new forms of uncertainty and vulnerability, particularly among populations lacking stable access to state-supported welfare systems.

Under such conditions, religious organizations frequently provide services that address immediate social needs. Educational institutions, charitable networks, healthcare facilities, microfinance programs, disaster-relief initiatives, and welfare activities become mechanisms through which religious movements acquire legitimacy and social influence. Their expansion should therefore be understood not simply as a consequence of religious belief but also as a response to structural conditions generated by neoliberal transformation. Section 7 below examines the concrete institutional architecture through which this occurs.

5. Dependency, Global Capitalism, and the Bangladeshi Development Experience

Dependency theorists challenged the assumption that all societies follow a common path toward development. Instead, they argued that capitalist development is characterized by structural inequalities between dominant and subordinate regions of the global economy (Frank, 1967; Amin, 1974). According to Frank (1967), underdevelopment is not the absence of development but a condition actively produced through historical incorporation into global capitalism. Amin (1974) similarly argued that peripheral societies frequently experience distorted development patterns oriented toward the needs of external markets rather than domestic social priorities.

These insights remain highly relevant to Bangladesh. Since independence, and particularly since the 1980s, Bangladesh has become deeply integrated into the global capitalist economy. Export-oriented manufacturing, overseas labor migration, remittance flows, foreign aid, and international investment have become central components of national development (Lewis, 2011).

The ready-made garment sector provides a particularly significant example. While the industry has generated employment and export earnings, it remains heavily dependent upon external markets and international supply chains. Economic growth therefore remains closely tied to fluctuations in global demand and international economic conditions.

World-systems theory further illuminates these dynamics. Wallerstein (2004) argues that capitalism operates through a hierarchical international structure composed of core, semi-peripheral, and peripheral regions. Peripheral economies often specialize in labor-intensive production and remain vulnerable to decisions made within the core regions of the global system.

Bangladesh’s position within this structure has produced contradictory outcomes. Economic growth has been accompanied by improvements in several social indicators. Yet inequality, labor precarity, environmental vulnerability, and uneven access to public services continue to shape everyday life (World Bank, 2024).

These contradictions have important ideological consequences. Economic development may increase aspirations while simultaneously generating frustrations and insecurities. Under such circumstances, religious organizations often provide moral frameworks that help individuals interpret social change and navigate uncertainty. Dependency theory therefore suggests that the growth of religious movements cannot be separated from broader patterns of dependent capitalist development.

6. Geopolitics, State Transformation, and Ideological Competition

The political economy of Bangladesh cannot be understood without considering its geopolitical context. Located at the intersection of South Asia and Southeast Asia and adjacent to the Bay of Bengal, Bangladesh occupies an increasingly important strategic position within contemporary international politics.

The rise of China, the continuing influence of the United States, and India’s regional ambitions have transformed South Asia into an arena of intensified geopolitical competition (Acharya, 2014; Arrighi, 1994). Infrastructure projects, maritime security initiatives, energy corridors, and trade networks have all increased Bangladesh’s strategic significance.

These developments have implications for domestic political structures. States operating within globalized environments must balance multiple pressures simultaneously: maintaining economic competitiveness, attracting investment, satisfying international partners, and responding to domestic social demands. Consequently, state functions increasingly become dispersed among governmental agencies, international organizations, non-governmental organizations, private actors, and civil-society institutions. This transformation creates opportunities for new forms of social and ideological influence.

Gramsci’s concept of hegemony provides a useful framework for understanding these developments (Gramsci, 1971). Political authority depends not only upon state institutions but also upon the ability to secure consent through civil society. Religious organizations have become particularly important actors within this context. Their influence frequently extends beyond religious practice into education, welfare provision, social services, and public discourse. The expansion of political Islam in Bangladesh should therefore be interpreted as part of a broader struggle over social leadership, cultural authority, and national identity.

 

7. The Political Economy of Religious Fundamentalism

The concept of the political economy of religious fundamentalism represents one of the most significant contributions to understanding the relationship between religion and social power in contemporary Bangladesh.

While many scholars focus primarily on ideology or theology, Abul Barkat argues that religious fundamentalism possesses a distinct material and institutional foundation (Barkat, 2007; Barkat, 2015; Barkat, 2018). According to Barkat, religious fundamentalism should be analyzed not merely as a system of beliefs but as a socio-economic formation embedded within networks of finance, education, welfare provision, business activity, and social organization. Barkat’s notion of the “economics of fundamentalism” identifies a complex institutional structure consisting of banks, insurance companies, educational institutions, NGOs, charitable foundations, healthcare facilities, publishing houses, media organizations, and business enterprises (Barkat, 2007). These institutions simultaneously generate economic resources and reproduce ideological influence.

This perspective complements Gramsci’s theory of hegemony. Religious organizations acquire influence not simply through theological persuasion but through their ability to establish institutional networks that shape everyday life. As public welfare provision declines under neoliberal restructuring, religious organizations frequently expand their social role, filling institutional gaps while simultaneously strengthening their organizational capacity. The following section examines precisely how this filling-of-gaps operates as a mechanism of psychological, economic, and political control.

8. The Architecture of Allegiance: Institutional Penetration and the Economics of Fundamentalism

Abul Barkat’s “economics of fundamentalism” identifies specific institutions—including banks, hospitals, schools, and NGOs—as the primary vehicles through which ordinary economic transactions are translated into durable political and psychological allegiance. This process of institutional penetration operates through four interlocking mechanisms. First, psychological embedding occurs because these institutions serve as points of daily contact. Unlike episodic religious services, an Islamic bank branch, a faith-affiliated hospital, or a religiously branded school is encountered repeatedly through loan repayments, medical visits, and salary disbursements. Each interaction is coded with religious symbolism—such as institutional naming, dress codes, and prayer breaks—which normalizes the fusion of material survival with religious authority in the individual’s everyday consciousness. As the institution functions, its routine operations deliver a continuous, low-intensity ideological message, reflecting Gramsci’s (1971) observation that hegemony is reproduced less through explicit coercion than through the texture of ordinary institutional life.

Second, the conversion of livelihood into loyalty is achieved through employment and patronage. These institutions frequently prioritize hiring, promotions, and vendor contracts for party members or sympathizers, creating a “cadre-supporting economy.” This allows the movement to absorb underemployed youth—a critical factor in contexts of jobless growth—and transform economic frustration into organizational membership. By building an internal labor market parallel to the state and the formal private sector, these movements insulate their cadres from mainstream accountability. Consequently, as Barkat (2007) notes, employment is not merely incidental to the religious mission; it is a primary instrument of its pursuit.

Third, these institutions manufacture dependency by structuring access to essential services as ongoing obligations rather than one-off transactions. Microfinance products, hospital fee waivers, and school scholarships are often tied to movement affiliation, creating relationships that make exit prohibitively costly for the beneficiary. This reproduces, at a micro-institutional level, the logic of macro-level dependency theory proposed by Frank (1967) and Amin (1974), where integration into the system generates structured reliance rather than autonomy.

Finally, financial self-sustainability insulates the movement from state and electoral pressures. By generating independent revenue streams through interest income, tuition, and remittance-linked financial products, these movements are not dependent on electoral success or foreign sponsorship. This financial independence allows them to survive political repression without organizational collapse, reinvest surpluses into further expansion, and reduce external transparency by circulating capital within their own ecosystem.

In synthesis, institutional expansion is not a byproduct of fundamentalist growth but its primary engine. Psychological embedding secures everyday legitimacy, patronage converts economic need into loyalty, manufactured dependency prevents exit, and financial self-sufficiency protects the entire structure from external pressure. This institutional framework provides the concrete evidence for the claim that neoliberal restructuring and religious fundamentalism are dialectically interconnected. The state’s retreat from welfare provision does not simply leave a vacuum; it creates a structured opportunity that these fundamentalist institutions actively and strategically occupy.

9. Bangladesh as a Dialectical Case Study

The preceding analysis suggests that Bangladesh provides an important example of the complex relationship between neoliberal capitalism, dependent development, and the expansion of religious institutions. Rather than representing separate or unrelated phenomena, these processes have evolved within the same historical context and have often interacted in mutually reinforcing ways.

Since the 1980s, Bangladesh has undergone extensive economic restructuring. Market liberalization, export-oriented industrialization, labor migration, financial integration, and increasing dependence on international markets have transformed the country’s social and economic landscape (Lewis, 2011; Devine, 2013). These changes have generated significant economic growth and improvements in several development indicators.

At the same time, rapid economic transformation has produced new social contradictions. Urbanization has weakened traditional community structures. Labor migration has altered family relationships. Informal employment and precarious work have increased uncertainty for large segments of the population. Rising aspirations have often coexisted with persistent inequalities and uneven access to social opportunities.

These contradictions have created a social environment characterized by both mobility and insecurity, in which individuals and communities frequently seek sources of identity, solidarity, and meaning. Religious organizations have emerged as important actors within this environment. Through educational institutions, charitable foundations, welfare programs, healthcare services, disaster-relief activities, and financial networks, they have become deeply embedded within civil society (Riaz, 2010; Asadullah & Chaudhury, 2016).

The expansion of Islamic banking provides a particularly revealing example. Islamic financial institutions are often presented as alternatives to conventional banking systems, yet their significance extends beyond finance — as Section 8 demonstrates, they also contribute to psychological embedding, patronage employment, and structured dependency. Similar observations apply to madrasa education, faith-based hospitals, welfare organizations, and religious NGOs.

From a dialectical perspective, the growth of these institutions should not be viewed simply as a reaction against modernization. Rather, they represent strategic responses to the contradictions generated by modernization itself. Neoliberal restructuring creates forms of social fragmentation and insecurity; religious organizations respond by providing solidarity, social services, employment, and moral frameworks — while simultaneously building the institutional infrastructure (Section 8) that converts that solidarity into durable political capital. Their success is therefore connected to the very conditions produced by contemporary capitalist development.

10. Discussion

The analysis presented in this article challenges several conventional assumptions concerning religion, modernity, and development.

First, it questions the secularization thesis that dominated much twentieth-century social theory. The contemporary resurgence of religious movements demonstrates that modernization does not necessarily lead to secularization; rather, modernization often transforms the forms through which religion operates within society.

Second, the article challenges explanations that treat religious fundamentalism exclusively as a theological or cultural phenomenon. Religious organizations acquire influence not only because of their beliefs but also because of their capacity to provide services, construct identities, generate employment, and create durable — sometimes coercive — social and economic networks.

Third, the article highlights the importance of integrating local developments within broader global processes. The growth of political Islam in Bangladesh cannot be understood independently of neoliberal globalization, dependent capitalist development, international financial institutions, and geopolitical transformations.

Fourth, the article demonstrates the continuing relevance of Gramsci’s concept of hegemony, while extending it through the institutional-penetration framework developed in Section 8: cultural authority is constructed not only discursively but transactionally, through banking relationships, hospital visits, school enrollments, and employment contracts.

Most importantly, the analysis extends Barkat’s concept of the political economy of fundamentalism by specifying the mechanisms — psychological embedding, patronage employment, manufactured dependency, and financial self-sustainability — through which institutional ownership translates into lasting political power (Barkat, 2007; Barkat, 2015). This institutional specificity significantly enriches contemporary debates concerning religion and political economy, and offers a more falsifiable, empirically tractable research agenda than purely ideological accounts.

11. Conclusion

This article has argued that neoliberal capitalism and religious fundamentalism should not be understood as inherently opposing forces. Drawing upon historical materialism, Gramscian theory, dependency theory, and Abul Barkat’s political economy of fundamentalism, it has developed a framework for understanding the relationship between economic restructuring, social transformation, and the growth of political Islam in Bangladesh.

The analysis demonstrates that neoliberal restructuring generates social insecurities, institutional gaps, and forms of fragmentation that create opportunities for religious organizations to expand their influence. Through banks, hospitals, schools, NGOs, and charitable foundations, these organizations do not merely provide welfare; they psychologically embed themselves in daily life, convert economic need into political loyalty through preferential employment, manufacture lasting dependency through conditional access to credit and services, and secure financial self-sustainability that insulates them from state or electoral pressure.

Dependency theory reveals how these developments occur within a broader context of unequal integration into the global capitalist system. Gramsci’s theory of hegemony highlights the importance of civil society in this process. And Barkat’s concept of the economics of fundamentalism demonstrates that religious movements possess material foundations capable of sustaining long-term organizational growth — foundations whose concrete institutional mechanics this article has sought to specify.

The Bangladeshi case illustrates a broader global reality. The contradictions of contemporary capitalism are expressed not only through economic crises and political conflicts but also through struggles over identity, morality, culture, livelihood, and social belonging, fought out in the very banks, hospitals, and schools that citizens depend on for survival. Understanding these interconnections remains one of the central challenges of contemporary political economy and social theory.

References

Acharya, A. (2014). The End of American World Order. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Amin, S. (1974). Accumulation on a World Scale: A Critique of the Theory of Underdevelopment. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Anderson, P. (1976). “The Antinomies of Antonio Gramsci.” New Left Review, 100, 5–78.
Arrighi, G. (1994). The Long Twentieth Century. London: Verso.
Asadullah, M. N., & Chaudhury, N. (2016). “To Madrasas or Not to Madrasas.” World Development, 82, 1–13.
Barkat, A. (2007). Economics of Fundamentalism and the Growth of Political Islam in Bangladesh. Dhaka: Forum for Secular Bangladesh.
Barkat, A. (2015). “Religious Fundamentalism: Towards a Political Economy Theory.” Bangladesh Journal of Political Economy, 31(1), 1–84.
Barkat, A. (2018). Fundamentalism in Bangladesh: External and Internal Dimensions of the Political Economy of Militancy. Dhaka: Muktobuddhi Prokashana.
Bayat, A. (2013). Post-Islamism: The Changing Faces of Political Islam. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Berger, P. L. (1967). The Sacred Canopy. New York: Anchor Books.
Berger, P. L. (1999). The Desecularization of the World. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Brown, W. (2015). Undoing the Demos. New York: Zone Books.
Cardoso, F. H., & Faletto, E. (1979). Dependency and Development in Latin America. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Casanova, J. (1994). Public Religions in the Modern World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Devine, J. (2013). Governance, Democracy and the Politics of Well-Being in Bangladesh. London: Routledge.
Frank, A. G. (1967). Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Gellner, E. (1992). Postmodernism, Reason and Religion. London: Routledge.
Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the Prison Notebooks. New York: International Publishers.
Harvey, D. (2005). A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kepel, G. (2002). Jihad: The Trail of Political Islam. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lewis, D. (2011). Bangladesh: Politics, Economy and Civil Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marx, K. (1976). Capital, Vol. I. London: Penguin.
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1976). The German Ideology. Moscow: Progress Publishers.
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (2002). The Communist Manifesto. London: Penguin Classics.
Ollman, B. (2003). Dance of the Dialectic. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Parsons, T. (1964). “Evolutionary Universals in Society.” American Sociological Review, 29(3), 339–357.
Peck, J. (2010). Constructions of Neoliberal Reason. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Polanyi, K. (2001). The Great Transformation. Boston: Beacon Press.
Riaz, A. (2010). Islam and Identity Politics among British-Bangladeshis. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Rodrik, D. (2011). The Globalization Paradox. New York: W. W. Norton.
Roy, O. (2004). Globalized Islam. New York: Columbia University Press.
Stiglitz, J. E. (2002). Globalization and Its Discontents. New York: W. W. Norton.
Wallerstein, I. (2004). World-Systems Analysis. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Weber, M. (2002). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. London: Routledge.
Wood, E. M. (1995). Democracy Against Capitalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Žižek, S. (2008). Violence. New York: Picador.