Religious Identity and the Provision of Public Goods: Evidence from the Indian Princely States
Religious identity affects preferences and can consequently affect policy. We propose two mechanisms through which a ruler's religious identity can affect public good provision: i) greater provision of goods in regions where more subjects are the ruler's co-religionists, and ii) lower provision of goods where private markets provide a substitute to the ruler's co-religionists. Empirically, identifying the causal effect of religious identity on policy is often impossible, since the religious identity of rulers rarely changes over time and place. We address this problem by exploiting the variation in the religion of rulers in the Indian Princely States in the early 20th century. The Indian Princely States had significant variation in the religion of the ruler (primarily Hindu and Muslim), often due to unique historical experiences. Using data from the 1911 census, we fin d that Muslim-ruled states had lower Hindu literacy but the religion of the ruler had no statistically significant impact on Muslim literacy, railroad ownership or post office provision. These results support the idea that rulers provide less public goods when religious institutions provide a substitute targeted at their co-religionists, but there is only weak evidence that rulers provide more public goods when more subjects share their religious identity.
|Date of creation:||2013|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Phone: (714) 628-2830
Fax: (714) 628-2881
Web page: http://www.chapman.edu/esi/
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Jared Rubin, 2011. "Institutions, the Rise of Commerce and the Persistence of Laws: Interest Restrictions in Islam and Christianity," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 121(557), pages 1310-1339, December.
- Lakshmi Iyer, 2005.
"Direct versus Indirect Colonial Rule in India: Long-term Consequences,"
Harvard Business School Working Papers
05-041, Harvard Business School, revised Nov 2008.
- Lakshmi Iyer, 2010. "Direct versus Indirect Colonial Rule in India: Long-Term Consequences," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 92(4), pages 693-713, November.
- Metin M. Cosgel & Thomas J. Miceli & Jared Rubin, 2011.
"Political Legitimacy and Technology Adoption,"
2011-28, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics.
- Metin M. Cosgel & Thomas J. Miceli & Jared Rubin, 2012. "Political Legitimacy and Technology Adoption," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 168(3), pages 339-361, September.
- Chaudhary, Latika & Rubin, Jared, 2011. "Reading, writing, and religion: Institutions and human capital formation," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 17-33, March.
- Esther Duflo & Raghabendra Chattopadhyay, 2004.
"Women as policy makers: Evidence from a randomized policy experiment in india,"
Framed Field Experiments
00224, The Field Experiments Website.
- Raghabendra Chattopadhyay & Esther Duflo, 2004. "Women as Policy Makers: Evidence from a Randomized Policy Experiment in India," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 72(5), pages 1409-1443, 09.
- Irma Clots-Figueras, 2012.
"Are Female Leaders Good for Education? Evidence from India,"
American Economic Journal: Applied Economics,
American Economic Association, vol. 4(1), pages 212-44, January.
- Irma Clots-Figueras, 2007. "Are female leaders good for education? : Evidence from India," Economics Working Papers we077342, Universidad Carlos III, Departamento de Economía.
- Rohini Pande, 2003.
"Can Mandated Political Representation Increase Policy Influence for Disadvantaged Minorities? Theory and Evidence from India,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 93(4), pages 1132-1151, September.
- Rohini Pande, 2002. "Can mandated political representation increase policy influence for disadvantaged minorities? Theory and evidence from India," Discussion Papers 0102-62, Columbia University, Department of Economics.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:chu:wpaper:13-26. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Megan Luetje)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.