(Translated by https://www.hiragana.jp/)
The Allocation of Publicly-Provided Goods to Rural Households in India: On Some Consequences of Caste, Religion and Democracy
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/umd/umdeco/99-004.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Allocation of Publicly-Provided Goods to Rural Households in India: On Some Consequences of Caste, Religion and Democracy

Author

Listed:
  • Roger R. Betancourt

    (Department of Economics, University of Maryland)

  • Suzanne Gleason

    (Massachussetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School)

Abstract

In this study we address the following question-- what determines the allocation of publicly-provided goods to rural households in India? Our paper is empirically driven but we draw on the characteristics of India's institutional structure and the implications of existing literature for framing the answer to this question. We confront the main empirical implications drawn from this frame of reference with a unique data set for India which brings together the widely used district data with a recently constructed data set on political participation. Our empirical results identify four important determinants of the outcomes of this allocation process: formal and informal characteristics of each state allocation mechanism, selectivity in the allocations against Muslims and scheduled castes; bureaucratic rules and behavior; and characteristics of the electoral participation process.

Suggested Citation

  • Roger R. Betancourt & Suzanne Gleason, 1999. "The Allocation of Publicly-Provided Goods to Rural Households in India: On Some Consequences of Caste, Religion and Democracy," Electronic Working Papers 99-004, University of Maryland, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:umd:umdeco:99-004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.econweb.umd.edu/papers/betancourt9901.pdf
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rosenzweig, Mark R., 1988. "Labor markets in low-income countries," Handbook of Development Economics, in: Hollis Chenery & T.N. Srinivasan (ed.), Handbook of Development Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 15, pages 713-762, Elsevier.
    2. Deaton, Angus, 1995. "Data and econometric tools for development analysis," Handbook of Development Economics, in: Hollis Chenery & T.N. Srinivasan (ed.), Handbook of Development Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 33, pages 1785-1882, Elsevier.
    3. Yifu Lin, Justin & Nugent, Jeffrey B., 1995. "Institutions and economic development," Handbook of Development Economics, in: Hollis Chenery & T.N. Srinivasan (ed.), Handbook of Development Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 38, pages 2301-2370, Elsevier.
    4. Yingyi Qian & Barry R. Weingast, 1997. "Federalism as a Commitment to Reserving Market Incentives," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 11(4), pages 83-92, Fall.
    5. Davoodi, Hamid & Zou, Heng-fu, 1998. "Fiscal Decentralization and Economic Growth: A Cross-Country Study," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 244-257, March.
    6. Bruno Frey, 1971. "Why do high income people participate more in politics?," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 101-105, September.
    7. Zhang, Tao & Zou, Heng-fu, 1998. "Fiscal decentralization, public spending, and economic growth in China," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 221-240, February.
    8. Wallace E. Oates & Wallace E. Oates, 2004. "An Essay on Fiscal Federalism," Chapters, in: Environmental Policy and Fiscal Federalism, chapter 22, pages 384-414, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. Davidson, Russell & MacKinnon, James G., 1993. "Estimation and Inference in Econometrics," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195060119.
    10. Huther, Jeff & Shah, Anwar, 1998. "Applying a simple measure of good governance to the debate on fiscal decentralization," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1894, The World Bank.
    11. Kollman, Ken & Miller, John H & Page, Scott E, 1997. "Political Institutions and Sorting in a Tiebout Model," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 87(5), pages 977-992, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mwangi S. Kimenyi, 2006. "Ethnicity, Governance and the Provision of Public Goods," Journal of African Economies, Centre for the Study of African Economies, vol. 15(1), pages 62-99, April.
    2. Sarmistha Pal & Sugata Ghosh, 2006. "Elite Dominance and Under-investment in Mass Education: Disparity in the Social Development of the Indian States, 1960-92," CEDI Discussion Paper Series 06-05, Centre for Economic Development and Institutions(CEDI), Brunel University.
    3. Dutta, Nabamita & Kar, Saibal, 2022. "Lockdown and Rural Joblessness in India: Gender Inequality in Employment?," IZA Discussion Papers 15270, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    4. Pal, Sarmistha & Ghosh, Sugata, 2008. "The Elite and the Marginalised: An Analysis of Public Spending on Mass Education in the Indian States," IZA Discussion Papers 3707, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    5. repec:pru:wpaper:18 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Aysan, Ahmet Faruk, 2005. "The Shadowing Role of Redistributive Institutions in the Relationship Between Income Inequality and Redistribution," MPRA Paper 17772, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Subham Kailthya & Uma Kambhampati, 2016. "Political Economy of Healthcare Provision: Evidence from India," Economics Discussion Papers em-dp2016-05, Department of Economics, University of Reading.
    8. M. Niaz Asadullah & Uma Kambhampati & Florencia Lopez Boo, 2014. "Social divisions in school participation and attainment in India: 1983–2004," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 38(4), pages 869-893.
    9. Aysan, Ahmet Faruk, 2005. "The Role of Efficiency of Redistributive Institutions on Redistribution: An Empirical Assessment," MPRA Paper 17773, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. R. Ramesh, 2021. "How Equal is Access to Public Services? The Impact of Sociodemographic Background on Public Service Delivery in Sri Lanka," Journal of Developing Societies, , vol. 37(1), pages 7-29, March.
    11. Dugoua, Eugenie & Liu, Ruinan & Urpelainen, Johannes, 2017. "Geographic and socio-economic barriers to rural electrification: New evidence from Indian villages," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 278-287.
    12. Joan Costa-Font & Divya Parmar, 2016. "Political agency and public healthcare: Evidence from India," WIDER Working Paper Series 135, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    13. Patricia Justino, 2004. "Redistribution, Inequality And Political Conflict," Royal Economic Society Annual Conference 2004 143, Royal Economic Society.
    14. Joan Costa-Font & Divya Parmar, 2016. "Political agency and public healthcare: Evidence from India," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2016-135, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    15. Kato, Atsushi & Fukumi, Atsushi, 2020. "Political economy of agricultural electricity tariffs: Rural politics of Indian States," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    16. Foa, Roberto Stefan, 2022. "Decentralization, historical state capacity and public goods provision in Post-Soviet Russia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    17. Pushkar, 2012. "Democracy and Infant Mortality in India’s ‘Mini-democracies’: A Preliminary Theoretical Inquiry and Analysis," Journal of South Asian Development, , vol. 7(2), pages 109-137, October.
    18. Tugrul Gurgur, 2016. "Voice, exit and local capture in public provision of private goods," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 397-424, November.
    19. Mani, Anandi & Mukand, Sharun, 2007. "Democracy, visibility and public good provision," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(2), pages 506-529, July.
    20. Crost, Benjamin & Kambhampati, Uma S., 2010. "Political Market Characteristics and the Provision of Educational Infrastructure in North India," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 195-204, February.
    21. Nisreen Salti & Jad Chaaban, 2012. "The political economy of attracting public funds: the case of Lebanon," International Journal of Development and Conflict, Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics, vol. 2(1), pages 1250001-125.
    22. Arindam Nandi & Ashvin Ashok & Ramanan Laxminarayan, 2013. "The Socioeconomic and Institutional Determinants of Participation in India’s Health Insurance Scheme for the Poor," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(6), pages 1-13, June.
    23. Ahmed Mushfiq Mobarak & Andrew Sunil Rajkumar & Maureen Cropper, 2011. "The Political Economy of Health Services Provision in Brazil," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(4), pages 723-751.
    24. Bilkis Vissandjée & Shelly Abdool & Alisha Apale & Sophie Dupéré, 2006. "Women's Political Participation in Rural India," Indian Journal of Gender Studies, Centre for Women's Development Studies, vol. 13(3), pages 425-450, October.
    25. Francesco Burchi & Karan Singh, 2020. "Women’s Political Representation and Educational Attainments: A District-level Analysis in India," Journal of South Asian Development, , vol. 15(1), pages 7-33, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Martinez-Vazquez, Jorge & McNab, Robert M., 2003. "Fiscal Decentralization and Economic Growth," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 31(9), pages 1597-1616, September.
    2. Luis Diaz-Serrano & Enric Meix-Llop, 2019. "Decentralization and the quality of public services: Cross-country evidence from educational data," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 37(7), pages 1296-1316, November.
    3. Smith, Heidi Jane M. & Revell, Keith D., 2016. "Micro-Incentives and Municipal Behavior: Political Decentralization and Fiscal Federalism in Argentina and Mexico," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 231-248.
    4. Christian Lessmann, 2009. "Fiscal Decentralization and Regional Disparity: Evidence from Cross-Section and Panel Data," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 41(10), pages 2455-2473, October.
    5. Ansolabehere, Stephen & Puy, M. Socorro, 2022. "Constitutions, federalism, and national integration," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    6. Tristan Canare & Jamil Paolo Francisco & Rose Ann Camille Caliso, 2020. "Decentralization and Income Inequality in a Panel and Cross‐Section of Countries," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(4), pages 543-579, May.
    7. Cull, Robert & Xu, Lixin Colin & Yang, Xi & Zhou, Li-An & Zhu, Tian, 2017. "Market facilitation by local government and firm efficiency: Evidence from China," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 460-480.
    8. Tristan Canare, 2022. "Decentralization and welfare: Evidence from a panel of countries," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 93(3), pages 767-796, September.
    9. Xuhong Su & Kelan Lu & Xiangming Hu & Yuqiong Xiang, 2019. "Reforms on county-level fiscal governance in China: impact on urban-rural income inequality," International Review of Public Administration, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(2), pages 81-100, April.
    10. Alfonso Mendoza‐Velázquez & Mónica Rubio‐García & Luis D. Conde‐Cortés, 2022. "Fiscal decentralization and regional economic growth: Evidence from Mexico since the 2000s," Public Budgeting & Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(1), pages 45-65, March.
    11. Stephen Ansolabehere & M. Socorro Puy, 2020. "Constitutions, Federalism, and National Integration," Working Papers 2020-04, Universidad de Málaga, Department of Economic Theory, Málaga Economic Theory Research Center.
    12. Whitney Buser, 2011. "The impact of fiscal decentralization on economics performance in high-income OECD nations: an institutional approach," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 149(1), pages 31-48, October.
    13. Ligthart, Jenny E. & van Oudheusden, Peter, 2015. "In government we trust: The role of fiscal decentralization," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 116-128.
    14. Matthew Higgins & Andrew Young & Daniel Levy, 2009. "Federal, state, and local governments: evaluating their separate roles in US growth," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 139(3), pages 493-507, June.
    15. Brueckner, Jan K., 2006. "Fiscal federalism and economic growth," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(10-11), pages 2107-2120, November.
    16. Berthold, Norbert & Fricke, Holger, 2007. "China's Booming Economy: Does the Federal Order Foster Growth?," Discussion Paper Series 95, Julius Maximilian University of Würzburg, Chair of Economic Order and Social Policy.
    17. Kayode Taiwo, 2024. "The Effect of Decentralisation on Access to Sanitation and Water Services: An Empirical Test using International Data," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 249(2), pages 157-180, June.
    18. M A B Siddique & Heru Wibowo & Yanrui Wu, 2014. "Fiscal Decentralisation and Inequality in Indonesia: 1999-2008," Economics Discussion / Working Papers 14-22, The University of Western Australia, Department of Economics.
    19. Sidra Naeem & Rana Ejaz Ali Khan, 2021. "Fiscal Decentralization and Gender Equality in Developing Economies: Dynamics of Income Groups in Economies and Corruption," Asian Economic and Financial Review, Asian Economic and Social Society, vol. 11(9), pages 745-761, September.
    20. Lars P. Feld & Gebhard Kirchgässner & Christoph A. Schaltegger, 2004. "Fiscal Federalism and Economic Performance: Evidence from Swiss Cantons," Marburg Working Papers on Economics 200420, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Distribution Sector; Allocation of Publicly-provided Goods; Tiebout; Collective Choice; Fiscal Decentralization in Developing Countries; Rural India; Empirical Analysis of Institutions;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • H4 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods
    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
    • O18 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Urban, Rural, Regional, and Transportation Analysis; Housing; Infrastructure
    • O53 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economywide Country Studies - - - Asia including Middle East

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:umd:umdeco:99-004. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Murrell (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.econ.umd.edu/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.