This article examines the impact that competing policy narratives can play in creating different models of citizenship, while anchoring its analysis in the question of welfare and social policy in India. The central argument is that the framing of the welfare narrative as state largesse or fiscal imprudence or an enforceable right is a primary site of political contestation with profound implications for how a policy is designed and the kinds of linkages it creates between citizens and the state. The analysis follows a hermeneutic arc, moving from explanation to understanding. First, it employs the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) to systematically explain the structure of two opposing narratives. Second, it seeks to understand their broader significance by analyzing the competing models of citizenship they promote. The findings reveal how these narratives strategically deploy characters, plots, and causal stories to legitimize distinct policy solutions and cultivate different forms of citizenship. This research offers a dual contribution: it extends the application of the NPF within a novel hermeneutic framework to the welfare state in a non-Western, democratic context, and it provides a structured, interdisciplinary analysis of the ideological underpinnings of social policy discourse in India, offering insights into policy construction and administration.
BardhanP.MitraS.MookherjeeD.NathA. (2024). How do voters respond to welfare vis-à-vis public good programs? Theory and evidence of political clientelism. Quantitative Economics, 15(3), 655–697. https://doi.org/10.3982/qe2315
10.
BarthwalA.AliA. (2021). Bypassing the patronage trap: Evidence from Delhi Assembly Election 2020. Studies in Indian Politics, 9(2), 254–272.
BaviskarA. (2020). Uncivil city: Ecology, equity and the commons in Delhi. Sage Publications.
13.
BhattacharjeeM.MysoorD. (2016). “Unredressed” grievances under RTE: Navigating the state labyrinth. Governance, 29(1), 31–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12132
14.
BlythM. (2013). Austerity. Oxford University Press.
15.
BohmanJ. (2009). Epistemic value and deliberative democracy. Good Society, 18(2), 28–34.
16.
ChakrabortyA. (2019). ‘From Passive Beneficiary to ‘Rights Claimant’: What Difference Does it Make?’ In D’CostaA. P.ChakrabortyA. (Eds.), Changing contexts and shifting roles of the Indian State. Springer.
GuptaA. (2018). The future in ruins: Thoughts on the temporality of infrastructure. In AnandN.GuptaA.AppelH. (Eds.), The promise of infrastructure (pp. 62–77). Duke University Press.
HerzogL. (2023). Citizen knowledge: Markets, experts, and the infrastructure of democracy. Oxford University Press.
31.
IllichI. (1971). Celebration of awareness: A call for institutional revolution. Equinox.
32.
IngramH.SchneiderA. L. (2005). Public policy and the social construction of deservedness. In SchneiderA. L.IngramH. M. (Eds.), Deserving and entitled: Social constructions and public policy (pp. 1–28).SUNY Press.
JayalN. G. (1994). The Gentle Leviathan: Welfare and the Indian state. Social Science, 22(9/12), 18–37.
35.
JonesM. D.McBethM. K.ShanahanE. A.Smith-WalterA.SongG. (2022). Conducting narrative policy framework research. In WeibleC. M.WorkmanS. (Eds.), Methods of the policy process (pp. 137–180). Routledge.
36.
KaltwasserC. R.ZanottiL. (2021). Populism and the welfare state. In GreveB. (Ed.), Handbook on austerity, populism and the welfare state (pp. 41–55). Edward Elgar.
37.
KentikelenisA.StubbsT. (2022). Austerity redux: The post-pandemic wave of budget cuts and the future of global public health. Global Policy, 13(1), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.13028
38.
LaenenT.RoosmaF. (2022). Who should get what and why? Insights from welfare deservingness theory. In YerkesM. A.BalM. (Eds.), Solidarity and social justice in contemporary societies (pp. 95–115). Palgrave Macmillan.
39.
LaytonM. L. (2020). Welfare stereotypes and conditional cash transfer programmes: Evidence from Brazil’s Bolsa Família. Journal of Politics in Latin America, 12(1), 53–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1866802x20914429
MaduroM. P.KahnP. W. (2020). Power. In MaduroM. P.KahnP. W. (Eds.), Democracy in times of pandemic: Different futures imagined (pp. 19–23). Cambridge University Press.
42.
MatteiC. (2022). The capital order: How economists invented austerity and paved the way to fascism. University of Chicago Press.
MukhiS. S.TiwariB. B.GhoshS. (2024). Promises of prosperity: The burden of freebies on India's fiscal health. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5008647
45.
MullerJ. W. (2017). What is populism?Penguin Books.
46.
NussbaumM. (2003). Capabilities as fundamental entitlements: Sen and social justice. Feminist Economics, 9(2–3), 33–59.
47.
OrtonM.SarkarS. (2023). COVID-19 and (mis) understanding public attitudes to social security: Re-setting debate. Critical Social Policy, 43(1), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/02610183221091553
PatnaikP.GhoshJ. (2020). For a set of universal economic rights. In DeyN.RoyA.PradanA. (Eds.), Rethinking India series: We the people. Rethinking India Series. Penguin Radomhouse India.
54.
PrakashF. M. (2019). The right to education in India: The importance of enforceability of a fundamental right. Oxford University Press.
55.
RatnamK. Y. (2021). Ambedkar’s democracy and state socialism. In BegariJ. (Ed.), B.R. Ambedkar and social transformation: Revisiting the philosophy and reclaiming social justice (pp. 54–71). Routledge.
56.
RawlsJ. (1999). A theory of justice (Revised ed.). Harvard University Press.
57.
RicoeurP. (1973). The model of the text: Meaningful action considered as a text. New Literary History, 5(1), 91–117.
58.
RicoeurP. (1981). Hermeneutics and the human sciences: Essays on language, action and interpretation. Cambridge University Press.
SenA. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford University Press.
62.
SenA. K. (1992). Inequality reexamined. Harvard University Press.
63.
ShanahanE. A.JonesM. D.McBethM. K.LaneR. R. (2013). An angel on the wind: How heroic policy narratives shape policy realities. Policy Studies Journal, 41(3), 453–483. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12025
64.
ShankarS.MehtaP. B. (2008). Courts and socioeconomic rights in India. In GauriV.BrinksD. M. (Eds.), Courting social justice: Judicial enforcement of social and economic rights in the developing world (pp. 146–185). Cambridge University Press.
TheissM. (2023). How does the content of deservingness criteria differ for more and less deserving target groups? An analysis of Polish online debates on refugees and families with children. Journal of Social Policy, 52(4), 962–980. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047279422000058
71.
TitmussR. (1968). Commitment to welfare. Allen & Unwin.
72.
TitmussR. (2019). Social administration in a changing society. In Essays on the welfare state (online ed.).Policy Press Scholarship Online.
73.
ValkenburgG.MamidipudiA.PandeyP.BijkerW. E. (2020). Responsible innovation as empowering ways of knowing. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 7(1), 6–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2019.1647087
74.
VisvanathanS.ParmarC. (2005). Life, life world, and life chances: Vulnerability and survival in Indian constitutional law. In de Sousa SantosB.Rodríguez-GaravitoC. A. (Eds.), Law and globalization from below: Towards a cosmopolitan legality (pp. 339–366). Cambridge University Press.
75.
WhiteS. (2021). Ethics. In BélandD.LeibfriedS.MorganK.ObingerH.PiersonC. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the welfare state (pp. 23–38). Oxford University Press.
76.
YerramsettiS.AnandM.RitzA. (2022). Digitalized welfare for sustainable energy transitions: Examining the policy design aspects of the cooking gas cash transfers in India. Sustainability, 14(16), 10117. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610117
