IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/indpol/v7y2019i2p219-233.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Rajeshwari Deshpande
  • Louise Tillin
  • K.K. Kailash

Abstract

In this article, we use data from the 2019 NES post-poll survey to assess the impact of BJP’s welfare schemes on voting behaviour. We demonstrate that compared to earlier elections, voters are more likely to give credit to the central government as opposed to state governments or local politicians for welfare schemes. This centralization is especially the case for some of the BJP’s new welfare programmes such as Ujjwala and the Jan Dhan Yojana . However, even earlier Congress-era schemes such as the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme and the Awas Yojana are now more associated with the central government. Schemes such as the Public Distribution System (PDS) and Old Age Pensions are still more likely to be associated with state governments. At the all-India level, we find some evidence that voters who received benefits under Ujjwala, Jan Dhan Yojana or Awas Yojana schemes were more likely to vote for the BJP, whereas recipients of pensions or MGNREGA were less likely to support the BJP.

Suggested Citation

  • Rajeshwari Deshpande & Louise Tillin & K.K. Kailash, 2019. "The BJP’s Welfare Schemes: Did They Make a Difference in the 2019 Elections?," Studies in Indian Politics, , vol. 7(2), pages 219-233, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:indpol:v:7:y:2019:i:2:p:219-233
    DOI: 10.1177/2321023019874911
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2321023019874911
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2321023019874911?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ana L. De La O, 2013. "Do Conditional Cash Transfers Affect Electoral Behavior? Evidence from a Randomized Experiment in Mexico," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 57(1), pages 1-14, January.
    2. Auerbach, Adam Michael & Thachil, Tariq, 2018. "How Clients Select Brokers: Competition and Choice in India's Slums," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 112(4), pages 775-791, November.
    3. Tillin, Louise & Deshpande, Rajeshwari & Kailash, K. K. (ed.), 2015. "Politics of Welfare: Comparisons Across Indian States," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199460120.
    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. Pushkar Maitra & Sandip Mitra & Dilip Mookherjee & Sujata Visaria, 2023. "Economic Policies vs. Identity Politics: The Rise of a Right-wing Nationalist Party in India," HKUST CEP Working Papers Series 202301, HKUST Center for Economic Policy.
    2. Ankush Goyal & Rajender Kumar, 2022. "Does Social Welfare Programmes Influence Households Trust in Local Administration and Their Political Participation? Evidence from the MGNREG Scheme in India," Indian Journal of Human Development, , vol. 16(3), pages 602-617, December.
    3. Jyoti Mishra & Vibha Attri, 2020. "Governance, Public Service Delivery and Trust in Government," Studies in Indian Politics, , vol. 8(2), pages 186-202, December.
    4. Steven I. Wilkinson, 2021. "Technology and clientelist politics in India," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2021-153, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    5. Prashant K. Trivedi & Shilp Shikha Singh, 2022. "What Lies Beneath the Successes of Hindutva: Reading the Uttar Pradesh Assembly Elections 2022," Studies in Indian Politics, , vol. 10(2), pages 214-226, December.

    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. Vasudha Chhotray & Anindita Adhikari & Vidushi Bahuguna, 2018. "The political prioritisation of welfare in India: Comparing the Public Distribution System in Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand," Global Development Institute Working Paper Series esid-111-18, GDI, The University of Manchester.
    2. Lehmann, M. Christian & Matarazzo, Hellen, 2019. "Voters’ response to in-kind transfers: Quasi-experimental evidence from prescription drug cost-sharing in Brazil," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    3. Sam Hickey & Tom Lavers & Miguel Niño-Zarazúa & Jeremy Seekings, 2018. "The negotiated politics of social protection in sub-Saharan Africa," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2018-34, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    4. Bardhan, Pranab, 2022. "Clientelism and governance," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    5. Peter Spáč, 2021. "Pork barrel politics and electoral returns at the local level," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 188(3), pages 479-501, September.
    6. Marina Dodlova & Anna Gioblas, 2017. "Regime type, inequality, and redistributive transfers in developing countries," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2017-30, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    7. Subhasish Dey & Kunal Sen, 2016. "Is partisan alignment electorally rewarding? Evidence from village council elections in India," Global Development Institute Working Paper Series esid-063-16, GDI, The University of Manchester.
    8. Benjamin Marx, 2018. "Elections as Incentives: Project Completion and Visibility in African Politics," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-03873801, HAL.
    9. Fuchs, Alan & Rodriguez-Chamussy, Lourdes, 2014. "Voter response to natural disaster aid : quasi-experimental evidence from drought relief payments in Mexico," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6836, The World Bank.
    10. Hare Krisna Kundo, 2018. "Micro politics of Social Safety Net Programmes: The case of the Food‐For‐Work Programme in Bangladesh," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 36(S2), pages 815-830, September.
    11. Baldwin, Kate & Bhavnani, Rikhil R., 2013. "Ancillary Experiments: Opportunities and Challenges," WIDER Working Paper Series 024, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    12. Han Il Chang, 2021. "A side effect of a broker's expertise in clientelism: A lab‐experimental study," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(3), pages 393-410, July.
    13. Patricia Justino & Bruno Martorano, 2016. "Redistribution, inequality and political participation: Evidence from Mexico during the 2008 financial crisis," WIDER Working Paper Series 140, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    14. Dodlova, Marina & Giolbas, Anna & Lay, Jann, 2016. "Non-Contributory Social Transfer Programmes in Developing Countries: A New Data Set and Research Agenda," GIGA Working Papers 290, GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies.
    15. Ganslmeier, Michael, 2023. "Are Campaign Promises Effective?," EconStor Preprints 274069, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    16. Cazor Katz, Andre & Acuña, Hector & Carrasco, Diego & Carrasco, Martín, 2017. "Transferencias como Canal de Ventaja Electoral: El Caso de Chile [Discretionary Government Transfers to Catch Votes: The Case of Chile]," MPRA Paper 83668, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Salomo Hirvonen & Jerome Schafer & Janne Tukiainen, 2022. "Policy Feedback and Civic Engagement: Evidence from the Finnish Basic Income Experiment," Discussion Papers 155, Aboa Centre for Economics.
    18. Ionut Cotoc & Alok Johri & Cesar Sosa-Padilla, 2018. "Debt, Defaults and Dogma: politics and the dynamics of sovereign debt markets," 2018 Meeting Papers 1125, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    19. Attanasio, Orazio & Polania-Reyes, Sandra & Pellerano, Luca, 2015. "Building social capital: Conditional cash transfers and cooperation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 22-39.
    20. Schaub, Max, 2021. "Acute Financial Hardship and Voter Turnout: Theory and Evidence from the Sequence of Bank Working Days," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 115(4), pages 1258-1274.

    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:sae:indpol:v:7:y:2019:i:2:p:219-233. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.