The BJP’s Welfare Schemes: Did They Make a Difference in the 2019 Elections?

Deshpande, Rajeshwari; Tillin, Louise; Kailash, K. K.

doi:10.1177/2321023019874911

Cited by 29 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There is an abundance of literature available on governance and its impact on vote choice. If the government in power is able to satisfactorily deliver social and economic goods to its citizens, its legitimacy remains unchallenged; if it fails to do so, its authority declines (Attri & Jain, 2019; Deshpande et al, 2019; Mishra & Attri, 2019; Suri & Kailash, 2014; Tillin et al, 2015; Virmani, 2004; Yadav & Palshikar, 2009). However, governance not only favours the incumbent but could also result in building trust in favour of the government, which could be a precursor to the re-election of the incumbent.…”

Section: Trends Emerging From Current Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, in the case of India, there could arise a problem of credit attribution between state and central welfare schemes due to a low level of awareness. Some studies (Deshpande et al, 2019; Mishra & Attri, 2019) have talked about the issue of credit distribution of welfare scheme between different levels of government. Therefore, in the next model, we have included the variable ‘whether state and centre have the same party in power’ along with our four governance variables and control variables.…”

Section: Analysis and Modellingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Governance, Public Service Delivery and Trust in Government

Mishra¹,

Attri²

2020

Studies in Indian Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several studies in the past show that the work done by the incumbent government helps the ruling party to get re-elected. However, most of these studies focus on re-election and do not look at the impact assessment of governance on trust in government, which is a precursor of re-election. To fill this gap, this article explores whether perceptions of good governance lead to trust in government. The results support the view that governance at the state level leads to a higher trust with the state government. Of all the variables used to measure governance as access, benefitting from welfare schemes had the maximum impact on trust. Other governance measures like availing public services and citizens’ interaction with the state too had a positive relationship with trust in the state government. Furthermore, having the same government at the centre and the state, strengthened one’s trust in the state government.

show abstract

Section: Trends Emerging From Current Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Analysis and Modellingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Governance, Public Service Delivery and Trust in Government

Mishra¹,

Attri²

2020

Studies in Indian Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Since 2014 and the re-emergence of a oneparty dominant system under the BJP, the incentives faced by opposition-ruled state governments are changing. Voters are now more likely to attribute credit for new social policy initiatives and some older social programmes such as the MGNREGA to the central government as opposed to state governments (Deshpande et al, 2019). Furthermore, the central government has increasingly turned to delivery mechanisms that enable it to bypass state governments whether by direct communication to the district-level, through the use of technology to make direct cash payments, or through reliance on central agencies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does India have subnational welfare regimes? The role of state governments in shaping social policy

Tillin

2021

Territory, Politics, Governance

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article asks whether state governments in India had developed sufficient autonomy during the era of multi-party fragmentation to determine and implement their own distinctive policy agendas in the field of social policy. It uses cluster analysis to look for variation in the welfare regimes of state governments within India's federal system. Employing the metrics of (de)commodification and defamilialization commonly used in the comparative cross-national literature on welfare regimes to assess the extent to which public welfare provision reduces dependence on market forces and family structures, the paper finds that India's states cluster in ways that suggest the existence of distinctive subnational welfare regimes rather than straightforward variation within a national welfare regime. The analysis challenges the national-level bias inherent in previous studies of comparative welfare regimes and offers insights into the operation of regional autonomy within the domain of social policy in India's federal system.

show abstract

“…The postcolonial Indian state has exhibited a strong (but now weakly repackaged) rhetorical commitment to pro-poor policies and affirmative action (see Deshpande et al, 2019 for a nuanced discussion), coupled with a high acceptance of the state reposing authority in experts. At the current conjuncture, however, the Indian state may be described as increasingly centralized with a strong propensity for authoritarian populist forms of governance (Chacko, 2018), coupled with a relatively high degree of elite capture.…”

Section: Indiamentioning

confidence: 99%

The Pandemic as a Rupture that Follows Rules: Comparing Governance Responses in India, USA, Sweden and Norway

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How a country responds to a rupture such as the COVID-19 pandemic can be revelatory of its governance. Governance entails not only the exercise but also the constitution of authority. The pandemic response thus presents a real-world disruption to verify or problematize some truisms about national governance and produce novel comparisons and insights. We present a comparative analysis across four established democratic nation-states. First, we identify concerns of relevance for national pandemic responses and map them to state characteristics. Next, we conduct thematic analyses of recent ruptures in India, the United States, Sweden and Norway, to form a baseline of truisms about governance responses to frontier moments such as this pandemic, and hypothesize their relative propensities across the concerns. We then compile comparative data on emergent pandemic responses during the first 90 days of respective, temporally proximate outbreaks. This combination enables us to link response characteristics to national propensities across the relevant concerns. We identify similarities and differences between what the pandemic responses reveal and the truisms of scholarship about the four countries state characteristics. We argue that ruptures in democratic governance contexts embody temporally discontiguous and country-specific patterns. They are conjunctures of particular possibilities for bounded reconfiguration. Such reconfiguration can intensify or shift the course of what the state is becoming. We argue that in our cases it accelerates shifts to authoritarianism (India and the United States), raises stark questions of national identity (Norway and Sweden) and underscores tensions between the reemergence of welfare states and the global project of neoliberalism. By revealing what sort of rules show resurgence across ruptures, our comparative analysis deepens a timely understanding of punctuated politics of reconfiguration of authority.

show abstract

The BJP’s Welfare Schemes: Did They Make a Difference in the 2019 Elections?

Cited by 29 publications

References 23 publications

Governance, Public Service Delivery and Trust in Government

Governance, Public Service Delivery and Trust in Government

Does India have subnational welfare regimes? The role of state governments in shaping social policy

The Pandemic as a Rupture that Follows Rules: Comparing Governance Responses in India, USA, Sweden and Norway

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About