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. Tillin, Louise & Deshpande, Rajeshwari & Kailash, K. K. (ed.), 2015. "Politics of Welfare: Comparisons Across Indian States," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199460120.
    3. 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.
    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. 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).
    3. Bardhan, Pranab, 2022. "Clientelism and governance," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    4. Benjamin Marx, 2018. "Elections as Incentives: Project Completion and Visibility in African Politics," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-03873801, HAL.
    5. Ganslmeier, Michael, 2023. "Are Campaign Promises Effective?," EconStor Preprints 274069, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    6. 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.
    7. Apoorva Lal & Mac Lockhart & Yiqing Xu & Ziwen Zu, 2023. "How Much Should We Trust Instrumental Variable Estimates in Political Science? Practical Advice Based on Over 60 Replicated Studies," Papers 2303.11399, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2023.
    8. 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.
    9. YuJung Julia Lee & Tiffany Radcliff, 2021. "Community interactions and sanitation use by the urban poor: Survey evidence from India’s slums," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 58(4), pages 715-732, March.
    10. Jan Gromadzki & Katarzyna Sałach & Michał Brzeziński, 2024. "When populists deliver on their promises: the electoral effects of a large cash transfer programme in Poland," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 91(361), pages 320-345, January.
    11. Pranab Bardhan & Sandip Mitra & Dilip Mookherjee & Anusha Nath, 2020. "How Do Voters Respond to Welfare vis-à-vis Public Good Programs? An Empirical Test for Clientelism," Staff Report 605, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
    12. Paniagua, Victoria, 2022. "When clients vote for brokers: How elections improve public goods provision in urban slums," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    13. Eric Chyn & Kareem Haggag, 2023. "Moved to Vote: The Long-Run Effects of Neighborhoods on Political Participation," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 105(6), pages 1596-1605, November.
    14. Khanna, Gaurav & Zimmermann, Laura, 2017. "Guns and butter? Fighting violence with the promise of development," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 120-141.
    15. Meya, Johannes & Poutvaara, Panu & Schwager, Robert, 2015. "Pocketbook voting and social preferences in referenda," VfS Annual Conference 2015 (Muenster): Economic Development - Theory and Policy 113120, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    16. Alexander James & Nathaly Rivera & Brock Smith, 2022. "Cash Transfers and Voter Turnout," Working Papers 2022-01, University of Alaska Anchorage, Department of Economics.
    17. Rajkamal Singh & Rahul Hemrajani, 2018. "Concentric Clientelism: A Case Study of Rural Saharanpur," Studies in Indian Politics, , vol. 6(2), pages 247-266, December.
    18. Raymond P. Guiteras & Ahmed Mushfiq Mobarak, 2015. "Does Development Aid Undermine Political Accountability? Leader and Constituent Responses to a Large-Scale Intervention," NBER Working Papers 21434, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Travers Barclay Child & Elena Nikolova, 2017. "War and Social Attitudes: Revisiting Consensus Views," HiCN Working Papers 258, Households in Conflict Network.
    20. Kate Baldwin & Rikhil R. Bhavnani, 2013. "Ancillary Experiments: Opportunities and Challenges," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2013-024, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).

    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.