Research
My research focuses on comparative identity politics with a regional specialization in South Asia. I seek to understand the causes and consequences of various manifestations of identity and to explore the relationship between identity politics and institutions and development.
Identity, Institutions & Development
My dissertation, ‘Subnationalism and Social Development: A Comparative Analysis of Indian States’ (see Works-in-Progress) explains how the cohesiveness of a political community accounts for variations in levels of social development through the study of a developing, multi-ethnic, federal democracy such as India. Specifically, the project addresses an empirical puzzle that first struck me many years ago while growing up in different regions of India, and to which I had yet to find a persuasive theoretical answer – Why, despite common legal, financial and electoral systems, do certain states in India enjoy educational and health outcomes equivalent to those of advanced industrialized countries while other states fare worse than some nations in sub-Saharan Africa?
I argue that the strength of subnationalist identification serves as a powerful determinant of governmental social policy and the societal monitoring of public services, which together determine the level of social development in a state. I demonstrate how the glue of a cohesive subnationalism generates a web of mutual commitments and fosters public support for collective welfare, which in turn motivates state prioritization of the social sector. I also show how a sense of solidarity promotes a politically conscious and active citizenry, which is more likely to act collectively to ensure the proper functioning of schools and clinics. In contrast, in the absence of a shared affective identification, members of a fractured subnation do not feel obligated towards each other and have little conception of a common good. The low societal support for collective welfare implies that the state will have less incentive to direct resources towards education or health. I highlight how the lack of a sense of belonging and fellow-feeling gives rise to low levels of civic awareness and participation, which impedes cooperative behavior to check the quality of public goods provided.
I develop my argument through a comparative historical analysis of the four states of Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh (UP). I employ a combination of archival research; census, macroeconomic and survey data; 112 structured, open-ended interviews and participant observation at schools and health centers, to delineate how a cohesive subnationalism has generated high levels of education and health outcomes in Kerala (
) and Tamil Nadu, while a fractured subnational identity has impeded social development in the state of UP. The case study of Rajasthan showcases the dynamic of change in the subnationalism model. A longitudinal analysis of Rajasthan demonstrates how the move from a fractured to a moderately cohesive subnational community results in striking increases in the level of social development. I test the strength of the subnationalism model against those of rival explanations, such as levels of economic development, the degree of ethnic fractionalization, the extent of political competition and rule by a social democratic party through a statistical analysis of all major Indian states.
The State & Ethnic Politics
In a set of related projects I examine the relationship between state institutions and ethnicity.
In a review article, currently under revision, entitled ‘Stating Ethnicity’, I have sought to distinguish the blurry contours of a long-standing and influential ‘statist’ framework for the study of ethnic politics. I show that a number of prominent works in political science share a crucial but relatively underappreciated emphasis on state institutions as a key determinant of ethnic politics. Leading scholars have provided substantial case study evidence from settings as diverse as colonial and contemporary Africa, Latin America, India and the United States for the central role of state institutions in the creation and/or intensification of ethnic differentiation, mobilization and conflict.
In order to further this statist framework for explaining ethnic politics, I have collaborated on developing a research strategy () for distilling the qualitative insights of these studies into a quantitative measure that captures the degree to which states institutionalize ethnicity.
One of the primary shortcomings of a statist research agenda has been the lack of broader, multi-country analysis of the relationship between state institutions and ethnic politics. An obvious explanation for such persistent inattention is a lack of available cross-national data. Comparable information about state institutions has not been widely available and little quantitative data exist for carrying out the types of cross-country, time-varying analyses that would be needed for making inferences about general patterns.
My primary collaborator, Prof Evan Lieberman and I have sought to address these lacunae by gathering data on the use of ethnic categories within state institutions across countries and over-time. Such data should facilitate cross-national research on the causes and consequences of particular ethnic institutions, their aggregates, and their legacies, and serve as a useful complement and corrective to the exclusive use of demographic factors, such as various ethnic fractionalization indices, in comparative analyses of the causes and consequences of ethnic politics.
For papers based on this project, see Works-in-Progress.
I have also explored the relationship between state institutions and the incidence of ethnic conflict in a working paper that traces the institutional origins of the violence in Kashmir. I show how the emergence of violence in the Kashmir valley in the early 1990s was less a product of external influences, as is suggested in much of the popular literature, and more a consequence of institutional changes, specifically the gradual abrogation of the state’s ‘special’ federal relationship with New Delhi. I frame this discussion in terms of the distinction in political theory between republican and liberal conceptions of freedom, arguing that such an institutional explanation of the Kashmir conflict is suggestive of the relative strength of a republican conception of freedom as the desire for non-domination over the liberal conception of freedom as the absence of interference.
Research Methods
I am also very interested in research methods, especially in the development of innovative, valid and reliable constructivist measures of ‘identity variables’ and strategies for multi-method research ().