印度福利的政治优先化:比较恰蒂斯加尔邦和贾坎德邦的公共分配制度

Vasudha Chhotray, Anindita Adhikari, V. Bahuguna
{"title":"印度福利的政治优先化:比较恰蒂斯加尔邦和贾坎德邦的公共分配制度","authors":"Vasudha Chhotray, Anindita Adhikari, V. Bahuguna","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3326547","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The idea of state responsibility for ensuring food security has gained ground, with strong popular mobilisations for the Right to Food around the world; but important variations prevail, both in the articulation of demands around food security interventions and in political responses to these. This paper takes a close look at India’s Public Distribution System, a programme with a long history and clear national-level, legislative backing, but considerable differences in prioritisation at the subnational level. Through an empirically rich and innovative comparison of Chhattisgarh with Jharkhand – both created at the same time, in 2000 – it asks why the opportunities afforded by statehood allowed Chhattisgarh to politically prioritise the PDS, but not Jharkhand. The paper finds that the explanation lies in the interrelated dimensions of political competition, the nature of pressures exerted by electorally significant societal groups, and political enablement of bureaucratic capacity. Finally, the analytical framework at the heart of the paper contributes to the emerging literature on the political conditions that allow the deployment of state capacity for the promotion of welfare.","PeriodicalId":365767,"journal":{"name":"Sustainability & Economics eJournal","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Political Prioritisation of Welfare in India: Comparing the Public Distribution System in Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand\",\"authors\":\"Vasudha Chhotray, Anindita Adhikari, V. Bahuguna\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3326547\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The idea of state responsibility for ensuring food security has gained ground, with strong popular mobilisations for the Right to Food around the world; but important variations prevail, both in the articulation of demands around food security interventions and in political responses to these. This paper takes a close look at India’s Public Distribution System, a programme with a long history and clear national-level, legislative backing, but considerable differences in prioritisation at the subnational level. Through an empirically rich and innovative comparison of Chhattisgarh with Jharkhand – both created at the same time, in 2000 – it asks why the opportunities afforded by statehood allowed Chhattisgarh to politically prioritise the PDS, but not Jharkhand. The paper finds that the explanation lies in the interrelated dimensions of political competition, the nature of pressures exerted by electorally significant societal groups, and political enablement of bureaucratic capacity. Finally, the analytical framework at the heart of the paper contributes to the emerging literature on the political conditions that allow the deployment of state capacity for the promotion of welfare.\",\"PeriodicalId\":365767,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sustainability & Economics eJournal\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-12-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sustainability & Economics eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3326547\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sustainability & Economics eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3326547","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

国家对确保粮食安全负责的理念已经深入人心,世界各地都在大力动员民众争取食物权;但是,无论是在对粮食安全干预措施的要求表达方面,还是在对这些要求的政治回应方面,都存在着重要的差异。本文仔细研究了印度的公共分配系统,这是一个有着悠久历史和明确的国家级立法支持的项目,但在次国家一级的优先级上存在相当大的差异。通过对恰蒂斯加尔邦和贾坎德邦(两者都是在2000年同时创建的)进行丰富的经验和创新的比较,它提出了一个问题:为什么邦地位提供的机会允许恰蒂斯加尔邦在政治上优先考虑民主党,而贾坎德邦却没有。本文发现,解释在于政治竞争的相互关联维度,选举重要社会群体施加压力的性质,以及官僚能力的政治使能。最后,本文核心的分析框架有助于新兴的关于允许部署国家能力以促进福利的政治条件的文献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Political Prioritisation of Welfare in India: Comparing the Public Distribution System in Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand
The idea of state responsibility for ensuring food security has gained ground, with strong popular mobilisations for the Right to Food around the world; but important variations prevail, both in the articulation of demands around food security interventions and in political responses to these. This paper takes a close look at India’s Public Distribution System, a programme with a long history and clear national-level, legislative backing, but considerable differences in prioritisation at the subnational level. Through an empirically rich and innovative comparison of Chhattisgarh with Jharkhand – both created at the same time, in 2000 – it asks why the opportunities afforded by statehood allowed Chhattisgarh to politically prioritise the PDS, but not Jharkhand. The paper finds that the explanation lies in the interrelated dimensions of political competition, the nature of pressures exerted by electorally significant societal groups, and political enablement of bureaucratic capacity. Finally, the analytical framework at the heart of the paper contributes to the emerging literature on the political conditions that allow the deployment of state capacity for the promotion of welfare.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Effects of Mutual Fund Decarbonization on Stock Prices and Carbon Emissions ESG and Sovereign Risk: What is Priced in by the Bond Market and Credit Rating Agencies? Can green defaults reduce meat consumption? Carbon Emissions, Institutional Trading, and the Liquidity of Corporate Bonds Facilitating sustainable FDI for sustainable development in a WTO Investment Facilitation Framework: four concrete proposals
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1