300,000 French people are permanently settled in the British capital city. They do not form a monolitic community, but various social groups marked by differences in economic and cultural capital. The French state has developed a strong institutional presence to meet the needs of this London based diaspora (consular services, cultural institute, schools, business support). The system is supplemented by associative structures that provide social services. French Londoners also have their own political representation: members of the French parliament, consular advisers, members of the Advisory Committee of the Union of French Nationals Abroad. These mandates give rise to elections and an extraterritorialisation of French politics. Brexit obliges the French Londoners—who have retained their French nationality—to consider the future of their resident status. They will have to negotiate with the British State. The new migration policies of the United Kingdom will also make the possibility to settle in London more difficult for French citizens.

The history of industrial capitalism and its modes of domination is intimately linked to that of violent entrepreneurs deploying their coercive resources at the service of workplace discipline, the extraction of surplus value and the securitization of the accumulation cycle. The relationship between capital and coercion is always fraught with tensions, though, and sustains new vulnerabilities among security-consuming elites. The manufacturing economy of Karachi is a particularly fertile ground for studying this endogenous production of insecurity by security devices. The relations between Karachi’s factory owners and their guards have generated their own economy of suspicion. Various attempts to conjure this shaky domination have generated new uncertainties, calling for new methods of control to keep the guards themselves under watch.

Business and politics in India have been closely connected since the colonial era, when entrepreneurs financed politicians who, in exchange, spared them some of the bureaucratic red tape. This proximity has endured after independence, even if Nehru’s official socialism subjected it to some constraints. Far from mitigating corruption, economic liberalization during the 1990s actually amplified it when large investors, attracted by the opening of the Indian market, paid huge bribes to political leaders, who often became businessmen themselves and forced public banks to lend to industrialists close to them, while businessmen were elected to Parliament, increasing insider trading. As it is observed in the modern era under Narendra Modi, be it at the national level and in his state of Gujarat, crony capitalism is well illustrated by Modi’s relationship to Gautam Adani, the rising star of Indian business. Crony capitalism has a financial cost (due to the under-taxation of companies and dubious debts on the banks’ balance sheets), a social cost (due to underpaid work and a reduction of the expenditure of education or health for lack of fiscal resources) and the environment (crony capitalists disregarding the most basic standards).