The State and Poverty in India

Cambridge South Asian Studies

by Atul Kohli

This analysis of the role of government in eradicating India's rural poverty raises a whole series of crucial contemporary issues relating to the state, its degree of autonomy in the developing world and the problems of effecting genuine redistributive reform. The particular importance of the book is that it focuses attention on the nature of ruling political parties as an important factor influencing the success or failure of redistributive and welfare politics in a democratic capitalist setting. Dr Kohli compares in detail three state-level Indian governments of the late seventies: Communist-ruled West Bengal, Karnataka under the Congress Party, and Uttar Pradesh under the Janata Party. Comparing these in terms of their success in redistributing agricultural land and creating employment for the rural poor, the author argues cogently that well-organised, left-of-centre parties in government - like that in West Bengal - are the most effective in implementing reform.

276 pages, Paperback

First published February 27, 1987

Reviews

[Akanksha · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book explores the effects of regime type on development in a capitalist-democratic framework. The research, through secondary empirical data and interviews, comparatively analyzes three Indian states (Karnataka, Uttara Pradesh, and West Bengal) in the late 1970s. It concludes a strong relationship between left-of-center regime type and development in the specific context of the democratic-capitalist framework. Atul Kohli vehemently refutes 'trickle down' as a model of poverty reduction and social reform. Reformism is dependent on strong leadership and political organization along with coherent ideological commitments towards pro-lower class policies. This comparative analysis is conducted along three dimensions: land reforms, small farmer reforms, and wage and employment for landless laborers.

The CPM regime in West Bengal performs well with its strong ideological and organizational structure that facilitates institutionalization of reform policies. The Urs regime in Karnataka performs only satisfactorily because of its poor organizational structure. The populist ideology of the Urs regime and its expansion of political base on the basis of diversification and not inclusion of lower classes impedes redistributive reform. Uttara Pradesh under the Janta regime completely neglects reform and focuses solely on patronage and has a poor organizational structure resulting in factions within the alliance. When empirically tested along the three dimensions mentioned earlier, the CPM regime is the only regime that brings about some substantive systemic reform.

The focus on regime type as a site of analysing social policy and reform provides essential insights into what kind of strategies and organizational structure various political groups can focus on to execute systemic reform for the development of lower economic classes. It also contributes to understanding how socio-political constraints should be navigated to arrive at a consensus for legislating and implementing.