Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

The disadvantaged incumbents: estimating incumbency effects in Indian state legislatures

  • Published:
Public Choice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper estimates the incumbency effects using a large dataset on state legislative elections in India during 1975–2003. I use a Regression Discontinuity Design (RDD) that estimates the causal effect of incumbency by comparing candidates in closely fought elections. I find that there is a significant disadvantage to incumbency in Indian State legislative elections, and the adverse effect of incumbency has increased after 1991. Also, the incumbency disadvantage is higher in states that have lower availability of public goods such as health centers, and lower employment, poverty and per capita income.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ansolabehere, S., Snyder, J., & Stewart, C. (2000). Old voters, new voters, and the personal vote: using redistricting to measure the incumbency advantage. American Journal of Political Science, 44(1), 17–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bardhan, P. (2001). Sharing the spoils: group equity, development, and democracy. In A. Kohli (Ed.), The success of India’s democracy (pp. 226–241). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bardhan, P., & Mookherjee, D. (2000). Capture and governance at local and national levels. American Economic Review, 90(2), 135–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bardhan, P., & Mookherjee, D. (2005). Decentralizing antipoverty program delivery in developing countries. Journal of Public Economics, 89(4), 675–704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bardhan, P., & Mookherjee, D. (2006). Corruption and decentralization of infrastructure delivery in developing countries. Economic Journal, 116(508), 101–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, D. (1989). Service-induced campaign contributions and the electoral equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 104(1), 45–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernhardt, D., & Ingbermen, D. (1985). Candidate reputations and the ‘incumbency effect’. Journal of Public Economics, 27, 47–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, D., Lahiri, A., & Roy, P. (1995). India decides: elections 1952–1995. New Delhi: Books and Things.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chhibber, P., & Kollman, K. (2004). The formation of national party systems: federalism and party competition in Britain, Canada, India, and the US. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chhibber, P., & Nooruddin, I. (2004). Do party systems count? The number of parties and government performance in the Indian state. Comparative Political Studies, 41(8), 152–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chhibber, P., Shastri, S., & Sisson, R. (2004). Federal arrangements and the provision of public goods in India. Asian Survey, 44(3), 339–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cover, A. D. (1977). One good term deserves another: the advantage of incumbency in congressional elections. American Journal of Political Science, 21(3), 523–541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cover, A. D., & Mayhew, D. R. (1977). Congressional dynamics and the decline of competitive congressional elections. In L.C. Dodd, & B.I. Oppenheimer (Eds.) Congress reconsidered (pp. 54–72). New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, G. W., & Katz, J. N. (1996). Why did the incumbency advantage in U.S. House elections grow? American Journal of Political Science, 40(2), 478–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, G. W., & Morgenstern, S. (1993). The increasing advantage in the US States. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 18(4), 495–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crook, R., & Manor, J. (1998). Democracy and decentralization in South Asia and West Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erikson, R. S. (1971). The advantage of incumbency in congressional elections. Polity, 3, 395–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erikson, R. S. (1972). Malapportionment, gerrymandering, and part fortunes in Congressional elections. American Political Science Review, 66(4), 1234–1255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferejohn, J. A. (1977). On the decline of competition in Congressional elections. American Political Science Review, 71(1), 166–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiorina, M. P. (1977). The case of vanishing marginals: The bureaucracy did it. American Political Science Review, 71(1), 177–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraenkel, J. (2004). Electoral engineering in Papua New Guinea; lessons from Fiji and elsewhere. Pacific Economic Bulletin, 19(1), 122–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraenkel, J. (2006). The impact of RAMSI on the 2006 elections in Solomon Islands. Political Science, 58(2), 63–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelman, A., & King, G. (1990). Estimating incumbency advantage without bias. American Journal of Political Science, 34(4), 1142–1164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, J., Todd, P., & Van Der Klaauw, W. (2001). Identification and estimation of treatment effects with a Regression-discontinuity design. Econometrica, 69(1), 201–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, G. C. (1985). Money and votes reconsidered: Congressional elections. 1972–1982, Public Choice, 47(1), 7–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, G. C. (1987). The marginals never vanished: incumbency and competition in elections to the U.S. House of Representatives. American Journal of Political Science, 31(1), 126–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, J., & King, G. (1999). A statistical model for multiparty electoral data. American Political Science Review, 93(1), 15–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laakso, M., & Taagepera, R. (1979). Effective number of parties: A measure with application to West Europe. Comparative Political Studies, 12(1), 3–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, D. (2008). Randomized experiments from non-random selection in U.S. House elections. Journal of Econometrics, 142(2), 675–697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, D., Moretti, E., & Butler, M. (2004). Do voters affect or elect policies? Evidence from the U.S. House. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119(3), 807–859.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, S. D., & Wolfram, C. D. (1997). Decomposing the sources of incumbency advantage in the U.S. House. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 22(1), 45–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayhew, D. R. (1974). Congressional elections: the case of vanishing marginals. Polity, 6, 295–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitra, S. K., & Singh, V. B. (1999). Democracy and social change in India: a cross-sectional analysis of the national electorate. Sage: New Delhi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molina, J. (2001). The electoral effect of underdevelopment: government turnover and its causes in Latin-American. Caribbean and industrialized Countries, Electoral Studies, 20(3), 427–446.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, J. (2002). Asymptotic bias and optimal convergence rates for semi-parametric kernel estimators in the regression discontinuity model. HIER discussion paper # 1989.

  • Steeves, J. S. (1996). Unbounded politics in the Solomon Islands: leadership and party alignments. Pacific Studies, 19(1), 115–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thistlethwaite, D. L., & Campbell, D. T. (1960). Regression discontinuity analysis: an alternative to the ex post facto experiment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 309–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trease, H. V. (2005). The operation of the single non-transferable vote system in Vanuatu. Comparative and Commonwealth Studies, 43(3), 296–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tufte, E. R. (1973). The relationship between seats and votes in two-party systems. American Political Science Review, 67(2), 540–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uppal, Y. (2007). Estimating incumbency effects in the U.S. state legislatures: a quasi-experimental study. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Irvine.

  • Weiner, M. (2001). The struggle for equality: caste in Indian politics. In A. Kohli (Ed.), The Success of India’s Democracy (pp. 193–240). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yadav, Y. (2000). Understanding the second democratic upsurge: trends of Bahujan participation in electoral politics in the 1990s. In F. R. Frankel, Z. Hasan, R. Bhargava, & B. Arora (Eds.), Transforming India: social and political dynamics of democracy (pp. 120–145). New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics, Youngstown State University, Youngstown, OH, 44555, USA

    Yogesh Uppal

Authors
  1. Yogesh Uppal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yogesh Uppal.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Uppal, Y. The disadvantaged incumbents: estimating incumbency effects in Indian state legislatures. Public Choice 138, 9–27 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-008-9336-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-008-9336-4

Keywords