Is it all the fault of "market fundamentalism?"

Economists have started examining their discipline, and how much the market can truly deliver.  To criticism from Nobel laureates like Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman, in a thoughtful essay, Jagdish Bhagwati reminds us, again,  that hundreds of millions were lifted out of poverty in India and China only because of liberal economic policies.  He then writes:

Capitalism works best when those who do not succeed, and are buffeted by the vicissitudes of life, still believe in success—believe that those who do succeed put their wealth to good use, and do not merely engage in self-indulgence. Remember that the Calvinists and the Jains of Gujerat accumulated wealth but spent it not on themselves but on promoting social good.

Capitalism works well when those who lose feel that one day they might also win. This is the great American dream: even when mobility has been less real than imagined, the belief matters.

Today, in the United States, both “stabilizers” of capitalism have taken a hit. There has been far too much flaunting of wealth, even as working-class incomes have stagnated, with magazines on “How to Spend It” in the Financial Times and displays of the insufferably rich glitterati in the Style section of the New York Times. 

I have only one question: why does he spell it as "Gujerat" when in India it is spelt "Gujarat?"  Bhagwati has his reasons, I am sure.  I wonder what those reasons are!  HT