Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T08:56:39.919Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effects of Malapportionment on Cabinet Inclusion: Subnational Evidence from India

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 November 2015

Rikhil R. Bhavnani
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Malapportionment doubly penalizes people from relatively large electoral districts or constituencies by under-representing them in the legislature and in the political executive or cabinet. The latter effect has not been studied. This article develops theoretical reasons for large constituency disadvantage in the cabinet formation process, and tests them using a new repeated cross-sectional dataset on elections and cabinet formation in India’s states, from 1977–2007. A one-standard-deviation increase in relative constituency size is associated with a 22 per cent fall in the probability of a constituency’s representative being in the cabinet. Malapportionment affects cabinet inclusion by causing large parties to focus on winning relatively small constituencies. These effects are likely to hold in parliamentary systems, and in other contexts where the legislature influences cabinet inclusion.

Type
Articles
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 48 , Issue 1 , January 2018 , pp. 69 - 89
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Department of Political Science, University of Wisconsin–Madison (email: [email protected]). I thank the University of Wisconsin–Madison, Stanford University and the National Science Foundation (SES-0921125) for research support. Many thanks to Pablo Beramendi, Anjali Bohlken, Shaun Bowler, Gary Cox, Jim Fearon, Steve Haber, Yoshiko Herrera, Karen Jusko, Kimuli Kasara, David Laitin, Frances Lee, Jonathan Rodden, Hiroki Takeuchi, Jonathan Wand, Jeremy Weinstein, Steven Wilkinson, three anonymous referees, and participants at the Stanford Comparative Politics Workshop and the MPSA Annual Conference for comments and discussions. Thanks also to Kalpana Sharma for helping me access India’s parliament library, to Trivik Bhavnani and Francesca Jensenius for their help in completing the cabinet dataset, and to Sona Das for data entry. Data and replication code are available at https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataverse/BJPolS, and online appendices are available at http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1017/S0007123415000587.

References

Agrawal, Arun. 2005. The Indian Parliament. In Public Institutions in India: Performance and Design, edited by Devesh Kapur and Pratap Bhanu Mehta, 77–104. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ambedkar, Bhimrao Ramji. 1949. On the Draft Constitution, In Constituent Assembly Debates XI, November 25, edited by Government of India, 972–981. New Delhi: Government of India.Google Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, Gerber, Alan, and Snyder, James. 2002. Equal Votes, Equal Money: Court-Ordered Redistricting and Public Expenditures in the American States. American Political Science Review 96 (4):767–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, Snyder, James M., Strauss, Aaron B., and Michael, M. Ting. 2005. Voting Weights and Formateur Advantages in the Formation of Coalition Governments. American Journal of Political Science 49 (3):550–563.Google Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen Jr., Snyder, James M., and Michael, M. Ting. 2003. Bargaining in Bicameral Legislatures: When and Why Does Malapportionment Matter? The American Political Science Review 97 (3):471–481.Google Scholar
Baker, Gordon E. 1986. Whatever Happened to the Reapportionment Revolution in the United States. In Electoral Laws and Their Political Consequences, edited by Bernard Grofman and Arend Lijphart, 257–276. New York: Agathon Press, Inc.Google Scholar
Bardhan, Pranab K. 1984. The Political Economy of Development in India. New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bates, Robert H. 1981. Markets and States in Tropical Africa: The Political Basis of Agricultural Policies. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Bhavnani, Rikhil R. 2013. Using Asset Disclosures to Study Politicians Rents: An Application to India, working paper, University of Wisconsin–Madison.Google Scholar
Bhavnani, Rikhil R. 2014. India National and State Election Dataset. Harvard Dataverse Network. Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/26526, accessed 14 June 2014.Google Scholar
Bhavnani, Rikhil R., and Jensenius, Francesca. 2015. Voting for Development? Ruling Coalitions and Literacy in India, Working paper. Madison and Oslo: University of Wisconsin–Madison and Norwegian Institute of International Affairs.Google Scholar
Bussell, Jennifer. 2012. Corruption and Reform in India: Public Services in the Digital Age. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chari, Anusha, and Gupta, Nandini. 2008. Incumbents and Protectionism: The Political Economy of Foreign Entry Liberalization. Journal of Financial Economics 88 (3):633–656.Google Scholar
Chaubey, P. K. 2001. Population Policy for India: Perspectives, Issues and Challenges. New Delhi: Kanishka Publishers and Distributors.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary W., and Katz, Jonathan N.. 2002. Elbridge Gerry’s Salamander: The Electoral Consequences of the Reapportionment Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fisman, Raymond, Schulz, Florian, and Vig, Vikrant. 2014. The Private Returns to Public Office. Journal of Political Economy 122 (4):806–862.Google Scholar
Forrester, Duncan B. 1970. Indian State Ministers and Their Roles. Asian Survey 10 (6):472–482.Google Scholar
Frank, Katherine. 2001. Indira: The Life of Indira Nehru Gandhi. London: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Hauk, William R., and Wacziarg, Romain. 2007. Small States, Big Pork. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 2:95–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horiuchi, Yusaka, and Saito, Jun. 2003. Reapportionment and Redistribution: Consequences of Electoral Reform in Japan. American Journal of Political Science 47 (4):669–682.Google Scholar
Huber, John D., and Inglehart, Ronald. 1995. Expert Interpretations of Party Space and Party Locations in 42 Societies. Party Politics 1 (1):73–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyer, Lakshmi, and Shivakumar, Maya. 2012. Redrawing the Lines: Did Political Incumbents Influence Electoral Redistricting in the World’s Largest Democracy? Working paper. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School.Google Scholar
Johnston, Ron, Rossiter, David, and Pattie, Charles. 1999. Integrating and Decomposing the Sources of Partisan Bias: Brookes’ Method and the Impact of Redistricting in Great Britain. Electoral Studies 18:367–378.Google Scholar
Kamath, P. M. 1985. Politics of Defection in India in the 1980s. Asian Survey 25 (10):1039–1054.Google Scholar
Kashyap, Subhash C. 1970. The Politics of Defection: The Changing Contours of the Political Power Structure in State Politics in India. Asian Survey 10 (3):195–208.Google Scholar
King, Gary, and Zeng, Langche. 2007. When Can History Be Our Guide? The Pitfalls of Counterfactual Inference. International Studies Quarterly 51 (1):183–210.Google Scholar
King, Gary. 1991. ‘Truth’ is Stranger than Prediction, More Questionable than Causal Inference. American Journal of Political Science 35 (4):1047–1053.Google Scholar
King, Gary. 2010. A Hard Unsolved Problem? Post-Treatment Bias in Big Social Science Questions. Hard Problems in Social Science Symposium. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.Google Scholar
Laver, Michael, and Shepsle, Kenneth A. 1994. Cabinet Ministers and Parliamentary Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, Frances E. 1998. Representation and Public Policy: The Consequences of Senate Apportionment for the Geographic Distribution of Federal Funds. The Journal of Politics 60 (1):34–62.Google Scholar
Lee, Frances E. 2000. Senate Representation and Coalition Building in Distributive Politics. The American Political Science Review 94 (1):59–72.Google Scholar
Martin, Lanny W., and Stevenson, Randolph T.. 2001. Government Formation in Parliamentary Democracies. American Journal of Political Science 45 (1):33–50.Google Scholar
McMillan, Alistair. 2000. Delimitation, Democracy and the End of Constitutional Freeze. Economic and Political Weekly 35 (15):1271–1276.Google Scholar
Munshi, Kaivan, and Rosenzweig, Mark. 2009. Why is Mobility in India So Low? Social Insurance, Inequality, and Growth, Working Paper No. 14850. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
Neto, Octavio Amorim. 2006. The Presidential Calculus: Executive Policy Making and Cabinet Formation in the Americas. Comparative Political Studies 39 (4):415–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nickell, Stephen. 1981. Biases in Dynamic Models with Fixed Effects. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society 49 (6):1417–1426.Google Scholar
Nikolenyi, Csaba. 2004. When the Central Player Fails: Constraints on Cabinet Formation in Contemporary India. Canadian Journal of Political Science 37 (2):395–418.Google Scholar
Panandiker, V.A. Pai, and Mehra, Ajay K.. 1996. The Indian Cabinet: A Study in Governance. New Delhi: Konark Publishers.Google Scholar
Parliament of India. 1976a. Lok Sabha Debates. New Delhi: Government of India Press.Google Scholar
Parliament of India. 1976b. Rajya Sabha Debates. New Delhi: Government of India Press.Google Scholar
Pethe, Vasant. 1981. Population Policy and Compulsion in Family Planning. Poona: Continental Prakashan.Google Scholar
Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley, CA: University of California.Google Scholar
Pitlik, Hans, Schneider, Friedrich, and Strotmann, Harald. 2006. Legislative Malapportionment and the Politicization of Germany’s Intergovernmental Transfer System. Public Finance Review 34 (6):637–662.Google Scholar
Rodden, Jonathan. 2002. Strength in Numbers? Representation and Redistribution in the European Union. European Union Politics 3 (2):151–175.Google Scholar
Rodrik, Dani, and Subramanian, Arvind. 2005. From ‘Hindu Growth’ to Productivity Surge: The Mystery of the Indian Growth Transition. IMF Staff Papers 52 (2):193–228.Google Scholar
Samuels, David, and Snyder, Richard. 2001. The Value of a Vote: Malapportionment in Comparative Perspective. British Journal of Political Science 31:651–671.Google Scholar
Siaroff, Alan. 2003. Varieties of Parliamentarianism in the Advanced Industrial Democracies. International Political Science Review 24 (4):445–464.Google Scholar
Sivaramakrishnan, K.C. 2000. North-South Divide and Delimitation Blues. Economic and Political Weekly 26 August–2 September:3093–3096.Google Scholar
Sivaramakrishnan, K.C. 2008. Fear of Change. Seminar 586.Google Scholar
Varshney, Ashutosh. 1995. Democracy, Development and the Countryside. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wallace, Jeremy. 2014. Cities and Stability: Urbanization, Redistribution, and Regime Survival in China. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Weingast, Barry. 1998. Political Stability and Civil War: Institutions, Commitment, and American Democracy. In Analytic Narratives, edited by Robert Bates, Avner Greif, Margaret Levi, Jean-Laurent Rosenthal and Barry Weingast. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Bhavnani Dataset

Dataset

http://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/MD64FN
Link
Supplementary material: PDF

Bhavnani supplementary material

Appendix

Download Bhavnani supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 77.7 KB