The literature on democratic accountability assumes that alternative institutions can make state practices more transparent and thus enhance accountability. In this paper, we problematize the celebration of alternative institutions by comparing the cases of Mexico and India. Why, we ask, given the popular support for a caste census and a rights-based approach to poverty alleviation in India and Mexico, respectively, did these initiatives lose steam soon after political elites conceded to civil society demands? In answer, we argue that alternative institutions may become conduits to undercut accountability under the guise of expertise through a mechanism that we call the “retreat to method,” in which political elites channel substantive public debate into abstruse disputes over methodology. As the task of measuring poverty and caste retreats into backrooms, vertical accountability between the state and civil society in our two cases has weakened. Horizontal accountability mechanisms—in which one arm of the state (e.g., the bureaucracy) provides checks and balances on another (e.g., the legislature)—may be exploited to undercut vertical accountability in cases where expertise is valued over democratic deliberation.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Interview, September 12, 2012.
We are grateful to an anonymous SCID reviewer for suggesting this phrase.
The scholarship on technocratic politics highlights the competing logics of democracy and expert-based decision-making and traces the tendency of experts to shift the debate to one where technocrats rule (Mitchell 2002; Centeno 1994; Jasanoff 2003). While democracy seeks to broaden the arena for public debate and participation, technocratic expertise values the voice and participation of those with the specialized skills and knowledge to achieve outcomes that will ostensibly benefit the public (Collins and Evans 2008; Brown 2009).
Interview, June 22, 2015.
Interview, June 20, 2015.
Interview, July 24, 2013.
Interview, March 3, 2013.
Interview, May 24, 2013; interview, September 20, 2012.
Interview, March 3, 2013.
Interview, February 29, 2013.
Interview, August 29, 2012.
The measures were named provisionally by the TCPM—L1, L2, and L3. The Fox administration named these measures of “food”, “capabilities”, and “assets.”
Interview, August 29, 2012.
The Social Development Law can be accessed here: http://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/ref/lgds/LGDS_orig_20ene04.pdf
Abers RN, Keck ME. Muddy waters: the political construction of deliberative river basin governance in Brazil. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. 2006;30:601–22.
Ackerman J. Co-governance for accountability: beyond “exit” and “voice”. World Dev. 2004;32:447–63.
Aguilar Camín H, Meyer L. In the Shadow of the Mexican Revolution. Austin: University of Texas Press. 1993.
Baiocchi G, Ganuza E. Popular democracy: the paradox of participation. Stanford: Stanford University Press; 2016.
Barrientos A. Latin America: towards a liberal-informal welfare regime. In: Gough I, Wood G, editors. Insecurity and welfare regimes in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2004.
Bayly S. Caste, society and politics in India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1999.
Brown M. Science in democracy. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2009.
Camic C, Gross N, Lamont M. Social knowledge in the making. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2011.
Centeno MA. Democracy within reason: technocratic revolution in Mexico. University Park: Penn State Press; 1994.
Cernea MM. The ‘production’ of a social methodology. In: Eddy E, Partridge W, editors. Applied anthropology in America. New York: Columbia University Press; 1987. p. 237–62.
Chatterjee P. Nationalist thought and the colonial world. London: Zed Books for the United Nations University. 1986.
Chhibber M. GoM unanimous yes to caste in census. New Delhi: The Indian Express; August 12, 2010.
Collins H, Evans R. Rethinking expertise. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2008.
CONEVAL, 2014. ¿Cómo se logró construir la medición de pobreza del CONEVAL? http://www.coneval.org.mx/Medicion/MP/Documents/Como_logro_construir_la_medicion_de_Coneval%20(1).pdf
Constituent Assembly of India. Constituent assembly debates. Volume XI. New Delhi: Lok Sabha Secretariat; 1966.
Cornelius WA, Craig AL, Fox J. Transforming state-society relations in Mexico: the national solidarity strategy. San Diego: Center for US-Mexican Studies; 1994.
Correspondent. Census 2011 to include caste. Hindustan Times. May 8, 2010.
Cortés Cáceres F. Breve historia de una historia breve: el Comité Técnico para la Medición de la Pobreza. In: Székeley M, editor. Numeros que mueven el mundo. México: Miguel Angel Porrúa;2005.
Davis D, Brachet-Márquez V. Rethinking democracy: Mexico in historical perspective. Society for Comparative Studies in Society and History. 1997;39:86–119.
de la Jara FH. De Progresa a oportunidades: efectos y límites de la corriente cívica en el gobierno de Vicente Fox. Sociología. 2009;24:70.
Deshpande S. Caste and castelessness. Econ Polit Wkly. 2013;48:32–9.
Dhar A. Caste in census. Chennai: The Hindu; August 12, 2010.
Dirks N. Castes of mind. Princeton University Press: Princeton; 2001.
Espeland WN. Bureaucratizing democracy, democratizing bureaucracy. Law and Social Inquiry. 2000;25:1077–109.
Evans P. Development as institutional change. Stud Comp Int Dev. 2004;38:30–52.
Evans P, Stallings B. Development studies: enduring debates and possible trajectories. Stud Comp Int Dev. 2016;51:1–31.
Express News Service. Census to include caste, government says will work out modalities. New Delhi: The Indian Express; May 8, 2010.
Fizbien A, Schady N. Conditional cash transfers: reducing present and future poverty. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank; 2009.
Frankel F, Rao MSA. eds. Dominance and State Power in Modern India. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1989.
Fourcade M. The political valuation of life. Regulation and Governance. 2009;3:291–7.
Fox J. The difficult transition from clientelism to citizenship: lessons from Mexico. World Politics. 1994;46:151–84.
Fox J. Accountability politics: power and voice in rural Mexico. Oxford: University of Oxford Press; 2007.
Galanter M. Competing equalities. New Delhi: Oxford University Press; 1984.
Government of India. Lok Sabha Debates, 15th Series, Vol. IX, 4th Session, Delhi: Government of India. 2010.
Graizbord D. 2017. Democratic accountability and its discontents: social policy evaluation expertise in Mexico. Ph.D. Dissertation, Brown University.
Grimes M. The contingencies of societal accountability. Stud Comp Int Dev. 2013;48:380–402.
Grindle M. Official interpretations of rural under-development: Mexico in the 1970s. San Diego: Center For Mexican Studies; 1981.
Gupta S. GoM approval for caste-based census. Chennai: The Hindu; August 11, 2010a.
Gupta S. Centre clears caste in census 2010. Chennai: The Hindu; September 9, 2010b.
Guru G. The Indian nation in its egalitarian conception. In: Rawat R, Satyanarayana S, editors. Dalit studies. Durham: Duke University Press; 2016. p. 31–49.
Haggard S, Kaufman RR. The political economy of democratic transitions. Princeton University Press: Princeton; 2009.
Hamilton N. The Limits of State Autonomy: Post-Revolutionary Mexico. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1982.
Heller P. Degrees of democracy: some comparative lessons from India. World Politics. 2000;52:484–519.
Holston J. Insurgent citizenship: disjunctions of democracy and modernity in Brazil. Princeton University Press: Princeton; 2008.
Houtzager PP, Acharya AK. Associations, active citizenship and the quality of democracy in Brazil and Mexico. Theory and Society. 2010;40:1–36.
Houtzager PP, Gurza LA. Civil society’s claims to political representation in Brazil. Stud Comp Int Dev. 2010;45:1–29.
Jaffrelot C. India’s silent revolution. New York: Columbia University Press; 2003.
Jaffrelot C, Kumar S. Rise of the plebeians? Delhi: Routledge; 2009.
Jasanoff S. (No?) accounting for expertise. Sci Public Policy. 2003;30:157–62.
Jasanoff S. The practices of objectivity in regulatory sciences. In: Camic C, Gross N, Lamont M, editors. Social knowledge in the making. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2011. p. 307–38.
Kalelkar K. Report of the backward classes commission. Simla: Manager Government of India Press; 1955.
Knight A. The Mexican Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1986.
Knight A. Democratic and revolutionary traditions in Latin America. Bull Lat Am Res. 2001;20:147–86.
Kohli A. The success of India’s democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2001.
Korolev A. Regime responsiveness to basic needs: a dimensional approach. Stud Comp Int Dev. 2016;51:434–55.
Kumar V. Demand for caste-wise census in 2011. Chennai: The Hindu; December 24, 2009.
Lee AS. Between apprehension and support: social dialogue, democracy, and industrial restructuring in Central And Eastern Europe. Stud Comp Int Dev. 2010;45:30–56.
Lee CW, McQuarrie M, Walker ET. Democratizing inequalities. New York: NYU Press; 2015.
Maldonado Valera CF. La construcción de pactos y consensos en materia de política social: El caso de la Ley General de Desarrollo Social de México, 2000-2008. Serie Políticas Sociales No. 181. Santiago de Chile: CEPAL, Naciones Unidas. 2013.
Mandal BP. Reservations for backward classes: Mandal Commission report of the Backward Classes Commission 1980. Delhi: Akalank; 1991.
Mitchell T. Rule of experts. Berkeley: University of California Press; 2002.
Molyneux M. Mothers at the service of the new poverty agenda: Progresa/Oportunidades, Mexico’s conditional transfer programme. Soc Policy Adm. 2006;40:425–49.
Natarajan D. Indian census through a hundred years. Delhi: Registrar General of India; 1972.
O’Donnell G. Delegative democracy. Journal of Democracy. 1994;5:55–69.
O’Donnell G. Horizontal accountability in new democracies. J Democr. 1998;9:112–26.
O’Donnell G. Democracy, law, and comparative politics. Stud Comp Int Dev. 2001;36:7–36.
Parsai G. Its for states to identify BPL families. Chennai: The Hindu; January 14, 2011.
Presidencia de la República. Inaguración del Simposio Pobreza: Conceptos y Metodología. 2001. http://fox.presidencia.gob.mx/actividades/?contenido=812
Press Information Bureau. Chidambaram emphasizes need to maintain integrity of census. New Delhi: Government of India Press Release; May 7, 2010.
Press Information Bureau. BPL census to be conducted along with caste census. New Delhi: Government of India Press Release; May 19, 2011.
PTI. GoM divided over caste census. Mumbai: The Times of India; July 1, 2010.
Skocpol T, Somers M. The uses of comparative history in macrosocial inquiry. Comp Stud Soc Hist. 1980;22:174–97.
Subramanian A. Making merit. Comp Stud Soc Hist. 2015;57:291–322.
Thorpe C. Participation as post-Fordist politics. Minerva. 2010;48:389–411.
Thorpe C, Gregory J. Producing the post-Fordist public. Science as Culture. 2010;19:273–301.
Valencia LE. Conditional cash transfers as social policy in Latin America. Annu Rev Sociol. 2008;34:475–99.
Venkatesan J. Supreme court declines to entertain PMK’s petition. Chennai: The Hindu; April 10, 2009.
Venkatesan J. Apex court moved for OBC census. Chennai: The Hindu; April 15, 2010.
Vijayanunni M. BPL surveys are mere BPL surveys, not caste census. Mumbai: The Economic Times; July 31, 2011.
Vijayanunni M, Deshpande S, Yadav Y, Thorat S, Japhet S, Gowda C, et al. Caste census: senseless separation. Chennai: The Hindu; September 13, 2010a.
Vijayanunni M, Rao MN, Thorat S, Deshpande S, Yadav Y, Japhet S, et al. Letter to the Group of Ministers on caste census. Chennai: The Hindu; August 13, 2010b.
Vithayathil T. 2014. The politics of the count. Ph.D. Dissertation, Brown University.
Vyas N. BJP ducks firm response to Pranab query on census. Chennai: The Hindu; August 7, 2010.
Witsoe J. Democracy against development. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2013.
Yadav Y. Reconfiguration in Indian politics. Econ Polit Wkly. 1996;31:95–104.
Yadav Y. Understanding the second democratic upsurge. In: Frankel FR, Hasan Z, Bhargava R, Arora B, editors. Transforming India. Delhi: Oxford University Press; 2002.
Yaschine I, Orozco M. The evolving anti-poverty agenda in Mexico. In: Adato M, Hoddinnott J, editors. Conditional cash transfers in Latin America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2010.
Zelliot E. Ambedkar’s world. Navayana: New Delhi; 2013.
Trina Vithayathil received funding from the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program (DGE-0228243) and Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grant (1303274), Fulbright Hays Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad Program, and the National Institutes of Health Training Program (T32HD007338) while completing her graduate work at Brown University. Diana Graizbord received funding from the National Science Foundation Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grant (1303560) and the NSF-Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship in Development and Inequality in the Global South. We are grateful to Aisalkyn Botoeva, Kara Cebulko, Orly Clergé, and Zophia Edwards for their constructive feedback on earlier drafts. We are also grateful to the editor and two anonymous reviewers for their detailed comments and suggestions.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Vithayathil, T., Graizbord, D. & de Leon, C. The Retreat to Method: the Aftermath of Elite Concession to Civil Society in India and Mexico. St Comp Int Dev 54, 19–39 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12116-018-9259-0
- Democratic accountability
- Alternative institutions