What factors account for a more active and politically engaged citizenry? Macro-national institutions, micro-level influences (such as individuals' wealth and education), and meso-level factors, particularly social capital, have been stressed variously in different studies. How do these different factors stack up against one another? What contribution does social capital make compared with the other factors? And how—through what channels—is social capital brought to bear on issues of democratic participation? These questions are examined here with the help of an original data set collected over 2 years for 69 village communities in two north Indian states, including interviews with more than 2,000 individual respondents. Analysis reveals that institutions and social capital work together in support of active participation. Social capital matters, and its effects are magnified when capable agents are also available who can help individuals and communities connect with public decision-making processes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Almond, G. , & Verba, S. (1965). The civic culture: Political attitudes and democracy in five nations. Boston: Little, Brown.
2.
Baden-Powell, B. H. (1970). The origin and growth of village communities in India. London: Scribner. (Original work published 1899)
3.
Bennett, S. E. , & Bennett, L.L.M. (1986). Political participation. In Samuel Long (Ed.), Annual review of political science (Vol. 1, pp. 85-103). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
4.
Berman, S. (1997a). Civil society and the collapse of the Weimar Republic. World Politics, 49, 401-429.
5.
Berman, S. (1997b). Civil society and political institutionalization. American Behavioral Scientist, 40, 562-574.
6.
Bratton, M. (1999). Political participation in a new democracy: Institutional considerations from Zambia. Comparative Political Studies, 32, 549-588.
7.
Bunce, V. J. (1999). The return of the left and the future of democracy in central and eastern Europe. In B. Yesilada (Ed.), Political parties: Essays in honor of Samuel Elderseld (pp. 151-176). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
8.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95-S120.
9.
Dahl, R. A. (1971). Polyarchy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
10.
Davidson, B. (1992). The black man's burden: Africa and the curse of the nation state. New York: Times Books.
11.
Dreze, J. , & Sen, A. (1995). India: Economic development and social opportunity. New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press.
12.
Duverger, M. (1954). Political parties. New York: John Wiley.
13.
Fisher, R. J. (1997). If rain doesn't come: An anthropological study of drought and human ecology in western Rajasthan. Delhi, India: Manohar.
14.
Foster, P. , & Simmons, B. (1978). Change in a Hindu village: Bhanapur in 1955, 1968, and 1973. College Park: University of Maryland, Department of Agriculture and Resource Economics.
15.
Huber, E. , Rueschmeyer, D., & Stephens, J. (1993). The impact of economic development on democracy. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 7, 71-85.
16.
Huntington, S. P. (1968). Political order in changing societies. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
17.
Jackman, R. W. , & Miller, R. A. (1995). Voter turnout in the industrial democracies during the 1980s. Comparative Political Studies, 27, 467-492.
18.
Jeffrey, C. , & Lerche, J. (2000). Stating the difference: State, discourse, and class reproduction in Uttar Pradesh, India. Development and Change, 31, 857-878.
19.
Joseph, R. (1997). Democratization in Africa after 1989: Comparative and theoretical perspectives. Comparative Politics, 29, 363-382.
20.
Kohli, A. (1990). Democracy and discontent: India's growing crisis of governability. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
21.
Kothari, R. (1988). State against democracy: In search of humane governance. Delhi, India: Ajanta.
22.
Krishna, A. (in press). Active social capital: Tracing the roots of development and democracy. New York: Columbia University Press.
23.
Laitin, D. (1995). The civic culture at 30. American Political Science Review, 89, 168-173.
24.
Levi, M. (1996). Social and unsocial capital. Politics and Society, 24, 45-55.
25.
Linz, J. (1994). Presidential or parliamentary democracy: Does it make a difference? In A. Valenzuela & J. Linz (Eds.), The failure of presidential democracy (pp. 3-87). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
26.
Linz, J. , & Stepan, A. (1996). Problems of democratic transition and consolidation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
27.
Lipset, S. M. (1960). Political man: The social bases of politics. New York: Doubleday.
28.
Lipset, S. M. (1994). The social requisites of democracy revisited. American Sociological Review, 59, 1-22.
29.
Mainwaring, S. , & Scully, T. (1995). Introduction: Party systems in Latin America. In S. Mainwaring & T. Scully (Eds.), Building democratic institutions: Party systems in Latin America (pp. 1-34). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
30.
Mamdani, M. (1996). Citizen and subject: Contemporary Africa and the legacy of late colonialism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
31.
Mitra, S. K. (1991). Room to maneuver in the middle: Local elites, political action, and the state in India. World Politics, 43, 390-413.
32.
Mitra, S. K. (1992). Power, protest, and participation: Local elites and the politics of development in India. London: Routledge.
33.
Moore, B. (1966). Social origins of dictatorship and democracy: Lord and peasant in the making of the modern world. Boston: Beacon.
34.
Mukherjee, R. (1923). Democracies of the east. London: P. S. King.
35.
Newton, K. (1997). Social capital and democracy. American Behavioral Scientist, 40, 575-586.
36.
Ost, D. (1995). Labor, class, and democracy: Shaping political antagonisms in postcommunist society. In B. Crawford (Ed.), Markets, states, and democracy: The political economy of postcommunist transformation (pp. 77-203). Boulder, CO: Westview.
37.
Pieterse, J. N. (in press). Participatory democracy reconceived. Futures.
38.
Przeworski, A. (1991). Democracy and the market. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
39.
Putnam, R. (1995, January). Bowling alone: America's declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, pp. 65-78.
40.
Putnam, R. (1996, Winter). The strange disappearance of civic America. American Prospect, pp. 34-48.
41.
Putnam, R. , Leonardi, R., & Nanetti, R. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
42.
Ragin, C. (1987). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press.
43.
Reddy, G. R. , & Haragopal, G. (1985). The Pyraveerkar: The “fixer” in rural India. Asian Survey, 25, 1147-1162.
44.
Rosenstone, S. , & Hansen, J. (1993). Mobilization, participation, and democracy in America. New York: Macmillan.
45.
Seligson, A. L. (1999). Civic association and democratic participation in Central America: A test of the Putnam thesis. Comparative Political Studies, 32, 342-362.
46.
Singh, R. (1988). Land, power, and people: Rural elite in transition, 1801-1970. New Delhi, India: Sage.
47.
Srinivas, M. N. (1987). The Indian village: Myth and reality. In M. N. Srinivas (Ed.), The dominant caste and other essays (pp. 20-59). Delhi, India: Oxford University Press.
48.
Verba, S. , Nie, N., & Kim, J. (1971). The modes of democratic participation: A cross-national comparison. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
49.
Verba, S. , Nie, N., & Kim, J. (1978). Participation and political equality: A seven-nation comparison. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
50.
Verba, S. , Schlozman, K., & Brady, H. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
51.
Weiner, M. (1989). The Indian paradox: Essays in Indian politics. New Delhi, India: Sage.
