Studies in Comparative International Development

, Volume 47, Issue 4, pp 389–410 | Cite as

Why the Poor Vote in India: “If I Don’t Vote, I Am Dead to the State”

Article

Abstract

Our empirical research in India shows the poor and the non-poor report different motivations for voting. The poor say they turn out to vote because it is their right while the non-poor report they vote because they expect material benefits from the state, some kind of access to the state, or because voting is their civic duty. We attribute the different reasons for voting offered by the poor and non-poor to their different relationships with the state. Unlike the non-poor, the poor mostly report the state mistreats or ignores them yet makes every effort on Election Day to ensure they are treated equally. The recognition the state grants to the poor on Election Day leads them to view voting as a valued right, one that gives them a rare chance to associate with those who govern as equals. The evidence in this paper was drawn from 30 focus groups with a total of 445 participants and 150 open-ended interviews conducted across Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, and Uttar Pradesh and three state and national-level surveys.

Keywords

Vote Participation Poor State Elections Rights Patronage Duty India 

References

  1. Alam J. Who wants democracy? Tracts for the times 15. Hyderabad: Orient Longman; 2004.Google Scholar
  2. Banerjee M. Sacred election. Econ Polit Wkly. 2007;42:1556–62.Google Scholar
  3. Bardhan P. The political economy of development in India. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1984.Google Scholar
  4. Bardhan P. Awakening giants, feet of clay: assessing the rise of China and India. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2010.Google Scholar
  5. Bass LE, Casper LM. Impacting the political landscape: who registers and votes among naturalized Americans? Polit Behav. 2001;23:103–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Booth JA, Seligson MA. Inequality and democracy in Latin America: individual and contextual effects of wealth on political participation. In: Anirudh K, editor. Poverty, participation and democracy: a global perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2008.Google Scholar
  7. Brady HE, Verba S, Schlozman KL. Beyond SES: a resource model of political participation. Am Polit Sci Rev. 1995;89:271–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bratton M. Poor people and democratic citizenship in Africa. In: Anirudh K, editor. Poverty, participation and democracy: a global perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2008.Google Scholar
  9. Bueker CS. Political incorporation among immigrants from ten areas of origin: the persistence of source country effects. Int Migr Rev. 2005;39:103–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Campbell DE. Why we vote: how schools and communities shape our civic life. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2006.Google Scholar
  11. Chandhoke N. Seeing the state in India. Econ Polit Wkly. 2005;40:1033–40.Google Scholar
  12. Chandra K. Why ethnic parties succeed: patronage and ethnic headcounts in india. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2004.Google Scholar
  13. Corbridge S, et al. Seeing the state: governance and governmentality in India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dreze J, Amartya S. India: economic development and social opportunity. New Delhi: Oxford University Press; 1996.Google Scholar
  15. Dube S. In the land of poverty: memoirs of an Indian family, 1947–1997. New York: St. Martin’s Press; 1998.Google Scholar
  16. Fearon JD. Electoral accountability and the control of politicians: selecting good types versus sanctioning poor performance. In: Bernard M, Adam P, Susan S, editors. Democracy, accountability, and representation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1999.Google Scholar
  17. Gaventa J. Power and powerlessness: quiescence and rebellion in an appalachian valley. Oxford: Clarendon; 1980.Google Scholar
  18. Gerber AS, Green DP, Larimer CW. Social pressure and voter turnout: evidence from a large-scale field experiment. Am Polit Sci Rev. 2008;102:33–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harriss J. Political participation, representation and the urban poor: finding from research in Delhi. Econ Polit Wkly. 2005;40:1041–54.Google Scholar
  20. Holston J. Insurgent citizenship: disjunctions of democracy and modernity in Brazil. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2008a.Google Scholar
  21. Holston J. Dangerous spaces of citizenship: gang talk, rights talk, and rule of law in Brazil. Berkeley: Center for Latin American Studies; 2008b.Google Scholar
  22. Holston J. Contesting privilege with right: the transformation of differentiated citizenship in Brazil. Citizenship Stud. 2011;15(3–4):335–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Horowitz DL. Ethnic groups in conflict. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1985.Google Scholar
  24. Jha S, Rao V, Woolcock M. Governance in the gullies: democratic responsiveness and leadership in Delhi’s slums. Washington, DC: World Bank Development Research Team; 2007.Google Scholar
  25. Kohli A. The state and poverty in India: the politics of reform. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1989.Google Scholar
  26. Krishna A. Poor people and democracy. In: Krishna A, editor. Poverty, participation and democracy: a global perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kumar S. Patterns of political participation: trends and perspective. Econ Polit Wkly. 2009;44:47–51.Google Scholar
  28. Linz J, Alfred S, Yogendra Y. “Nation-state” or “state-nation”: comparative reflections on Indian democracy. In: Shankar B, editor. Managing diversity in democracies: India and the United States. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007.Google Scholar
  29. Lyngdoh JM. Chronicle of an impossible election: the 2002 Jammu and Kashmir assembly election. New Delhi: Vyking Penguin; 2004.Google Scholar
  30. Marrow HB. New destinations and immigrant incorporation. Perspect Polit. 2005;3:781–99.Google Scholar
  31. Mehta PB. The burden of democracy. New Delhi: Penguin; 2003.Google Scholar
  32. Mehta PB, Kapur D, editors. Public institutions in India: performance and design. New Delhi: Oxford University Press; 2005.Google Scholar
  33. Mitra S. Power, protest and participation: local elites and development in India. London: Routledge; 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mitra S. Making local government work: local elites, panchayati raj and governance in India. In: Atul K, editor. The success of India’s democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2001.Google Scholar
  35. Mitra S, Singh VB. Democracy and social change in India: a cross-sectional analysis of the national electorate. New Delhi: Sage; 1999.Google Scholar
  36. Nichter S. Vote buying or turnout buying? Machine politics and the secret ballot. Am Polit Sci Rev. 2008;102:19–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. O'Brien JK, Li L. Rightful resistance in rural China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Piven FF, Cloward RA. Low income people and the political process. In: Piven FF, Cloward RA, editors. The breaking of the American social compact. New York: The New Press; 1997.Google Scholar
  39. Posner DN. Institutions and ethnic politics in Africa. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ramakrishnan SK, Espenshade TJ. Immigrant incorporation and political participation in the United States. Int Migr Rev. 2001;35:870–909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rao R. A positive verdict. Econ Polit Wkly. 2004;39:5437–40.Google Scholar
  42. Rehfeld A. Towards a general theory of political representation. J Polit. 2006;68:1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rudolph LI, Rudolph SH. The modernity of tradition: political development in India. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1967.Google Scholar
  44. Scott J. Weapons of the weak: everyday forms of peasant resistance. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1985.Google Scholar
  45. Somers MR. Rights, relationality, and membership: rethinking the making and meaning of citizenship. Law Soc Inq. 1994;19:63–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Somers MR. Genealogies of citizenship: markets, statelessness, and the right to have rights. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press; 2008.Google Scholar
  47. Stokes S. Perverse accountability: a formal model of machine politics with evidence from Argentina. Am Polit Sci Rev. 2005;99:315–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sunstein CR. Democracy and shifting preferences. In: Copp D, Hampton J, Roemer J, editors. The idea of democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1993.Google Scholar
  49. Urbinati N. Representation as advocacy: a study of democratic deliberation. Polit Theory. 2000;28:758–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Urbinati N. Representative democracy: principles and genealogy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2006.Google Scholar
  51. Urbinati N, Warren ME. The concept of representation in contemporary democratic theory. Am Rev Polit Sci. 2008;11:387–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Varshney A. Democracy and poverty. In: Narayan D, editor. Measuring empowerment: cross-disciplinary perspectives. Washington, DC: The World Bank; 2005.Google Scholar
  53. Weiner M. The child and the state in India. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1991.Google Scholar
  54. Wilkinson SI. Explaining changing patterns of party-voter linkages in India. In: Kitschelt H, Wilkinson SI, editors. Patrons, clients and policies: patterns of democratic accountability and political competition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007.Google Scholar
  55. Wood E. Insurgent collective action and civil war in El Salvador. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Yadav Y. Reconfiguration in Indian politics. Econ Polit Wkly. 1996;31:96–104.Google Scholar
  57. Yadav Y. India’s third electoral system—1989–1999. Econ Polit Wkly. 1999;34:2393–9.Google Scholar
  58. Yadav Y. The elusive mandate of 2004. Econ Polit Wkly. 2004;37:5383–98.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of CaliforniaSanta BarbaraUSA
  2. 2.University of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations