2019
DOI: 10.1080/17457289.2019.1624555
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Inequality and voting among deprived ethnic groups: evidence from India

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

1
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A longstanding literature in comparative politics shows that socio-political cleavages and their interaction with each other influences nonviolent political mobilization such as party formation in their argument and main dependent variable, which is the severity of riots, measured as casualties, rather than the incidence and frequency of riots. and voting as well as violent mobilization such as civil wars and communal conflict (Lipset and Rokkan, 1967;Lijphart, 1977;Chandra, 2007;Dunning and Harrison, 2010;Cederman et al, 2011;Gubler and Selway, 2012;Hillesund, 2017;Huber and Suryanarayan, 2016;Houle et al, 2018;Higashijima and Houle, 2017;Bulutgil and Prasad, 2020;Tudor and Ziegfeld, 2019). The logic of these arguments is that when social cleavages such as ethno-religious divisions cross-cut rather than overlap with other divisions such as economic ones, ethno-religious divisions become less visible and intergroup relations are less polarized.…”
Section: Inequality Grievances and Riotsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…A longstanding literature in comparative politics shows that socio-political cleavages and their interaction with each other influences nonviolent political mobilization such as party formation in their argument and main dependent variable, which is the severity of riots, measured as casualties, rather than the incidence and frequency of riots. and voting as well as violent mobilization such as civil wars and communal conflict (Lipset and Rokkan, 1967;Lijphart, 1977;Chandra, 2007;Dunning and Harrison, 2010;Cederman et al, 2011;Gubler and Selway, 2012;Hillesund, 2017;Huber and Suryanarayan, 2016;Houle et al, 2018;Higashijima and Houle, 2017;Bulutgil and Prasad, 2020;Tudor and Ziegfeld, 2019). The logic of these arguments is that when social cleavages such as ethno-religious divisions cross-cut rather than overlap with other divisions such as economic ones, ethno-religious divisions become less visible and intergroup relations are less polarized.…”
Section: Inequality Grievances and Riotsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This otherwise vibrant literature largely ignores the potential effect of economic inequality within or between groups on communal riots. 4 The lack of interest in inequality is surprising given that existing studies using data from India and elsewhere have amassed significant empirical evidence indicating that within- and between-group inequality influence non-violent political mobilization in the form of voting and party system formation (Huber & Suryanarayan, 2016; Dunning & Harrison, 2010; Bulutgil & Prasad, 2020; Houle et al, 2018). Our article establishes a link between these studies and the study of political violence by showing that economic inequality within and between ethnic groups also influences violent political mobilization in the form of riots.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…22.The original sources report income for approximately the upper quartile, while the remainder of the data are extrapolated. Bulutgil and Prasad (2020) show that high within-group inequality limits the success of ethnic parties in India. Unfortunately, we lack data on income by linguistic group and therefore cannot account for this argument in the analysis.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%