Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2022-12
Does Social Welfare Programmes Influence Households Trust in Local Administration and Their Political Participation? Evidence from the MGNREG Scheme in India
This paper investigates the effect of receiving employment benefits under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee (MGNREG) scheme on the household’s trust in the local administration and their political participation. The present study is based on primary data collected through a structured schedule from selected districts of Haryana, India. In order to analyse the collected data, the ordered logistic regression method was used. The major findings of the study indicated that MGNREG beneficiaries expressed a lower level of trust and unfavourable attitude towards local administration. They were also found less interested in participating in the village-level meetings. Thus, it appeared that simply being a beneficiary of the MGNREG programme was not adequate to influence public trust in local administration.
AdatoM. (2000). The impact of PROGRESA on community social relationships. International Food Policy Research Institute.
2.
AfridiF., IversenV., & SharanM. R. (2017). Women political leaders, corruption, and learning: Evidence from a large public program in India. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 66(1), 1–30.
3.
AraújoV. (2021). Do anti-poverty policies sway voters? Evidence from a meta-analysis of conditional cash transfers. Research & Politics, 8(1), 2053168021991715.
4.
BanerjeeA., DufloE., ImbertC., MathewS., & PandeR. (2020). E-governance, accountability, and leakage in public programs: Experimental evidence from a financial management reform in India. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 12(4), 39–72.
5.
BardhanP. K., MitraS., MookherjeeD., & NathA. (2018). Resource transfers to local governments: Political manipulation and household responses in West Bengal [Working Papers Series dp-319]. The Institute of Economic Development, Boston University.
6.
BergE., BhattacharyyaS., RajasekharD., & ManjulaR. (2018). Can public works increase equilibrium wages? Evidence from India’s National Rural Employment Guarantee. World Development, 103, 239–254. 10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.10.027
7.
BeshiT. D., & KaurR. (2020). Public trust in local government: Explaining the role of good governance practices. Public Organization Review, 20(2), 337–350.
8.
BoseN., & DasS. (2018). Political reservation for women and delivery of public works program. Review of Development Economics, 22(1), 203–219.
9.
BruchS. K., FerreeM. M., & SossJ. (2010). From policy to polity: Democracy, paternalism, and the incorporation of disadvantaged citizens. American Sociological Review, 75(2), 205–226.
10.
CamachoL. A. (2014). The effects of conditional cash transfers on social engagement and trust in institutions: Evidence from Peru’s Juntos programme [Discussion paper 24], German Development Institute.
11.
ChauN. H., LiuY., & SoundararajanV. (2021). Political activism as a determinant of strategic transfers: Evidence from an Indian public works program. European Economic Review, 132, 103631. 10.1016/j.euroecorev.2020.103631
12.
ChenX., & ShiT. (2001). Media effects on political confidence and trust in the People’s Republic of China in the post-Tiananmen period. East Asia, 19(3), 84–118.
13.
ClarkJ. R., & LeeD. R. (2001). The optimal trust in government. Eastern Economic Journal, 27(1), 19–34.
14.
ConoverE., ZárateR. A., CamachoA., & BaezJ. E. (2020). Cash and ballots: Conditional transfers, political participation, and voting behavior. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 68(2), 541–566.
15.
CooperC. A., KnottsH. G., & BrennanK. M. (2008). The importance of trust in government for public administration: The case of zoning. Public Administration Review, 68(3), 459–468.
16.
CuriniL., JouW., & MemoliV. (2012). Satisfaction with democracy and the winner/loser debate: The role of policy preferences and past experience. British Journal of Political Science, 42(2), 241–261.
17.
DasU. (2015). Can the rural employment guarantee scheme reduce rural out-migration: Evidence from West Bengal, India. The Journal of Development Studies, 51(6), 621–641.
18.
DasguptaA., GawandeK., & KapurD. (2017). (When) do antipoverty programs reduce violence? India’s rural employment guarantee and Maoist conflict. International Organization, 71(3), 605–632.
19.
De La OA. L. (2013). Do conditional cash transfers affect electoral behavior? Evidence from a randomized experiment in Mexico. American Journal of Political Science, 57(1), 1–14.
20.
de MillianoM., BarringtonC., AngelesG., & GbedemahC. (2021). Crowding-out or crowding-in? Effects of LEAP 1000 unconditional cash transfer program on household and community support among women in rural Ghana. World Development, 143, 105466.
21.
DeiningerK., & LiuY. (2019). Heterogeneous welfare impacts of national rural employment guarantee scheme: Evidence from Andhra Pradesh, India. World Development, 117, 98–111. 10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105466
22.
DesaiR. M., & JoshiS. (2014). Collective action and community development: Evidence from self-help groups in rural India. The World Bank Economic Review, 28(3), 492–524.
23.
DeshpandeR., TillinL., & KailashK. K. (2019). The BJP’s welfare schemes: Did they make a difference in the 2019 elections?. Studies in Indian Politics, 7(2), 219–233.
24.
DowneJ., CowellR., ChenA., & MorganK. (2013). The determinants of public trust in English local government: How important is the ethical behaviour of elected councillors?. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 79(4), 597–617.
25.
DunnC. (2017). The participating poor: The effect of conditional cash transfers on beneficiary political participation [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
26.
EstevesT., RaoK. V., SinhaB., RoyS. S., RaoB., JhaS. K., SinghA. B., PatilV., SharmaN., RaoS. A., MurthyI. K., SharmaR., PorscheI., BasuK., & RavindranathN. H. (2013). Agricultural and livelihood vulnerability reduction through the MGNREGA. Economic and Political Weekly, 48(52), 94–103.
27.
EvansD. K., HoltemeyerB., & KosecK. (2019). Cash transfers increase trust in local government. World Development, 114, 138–155. 10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.08.020
28.
GalianiS., HajjN., McEwanP. J., IbarraránP., & KrishnaswamyN. (2019). Voter response to peak and end transfers: Evidence from a conditional cash transfer experiment. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 11(3), 232–260.
29.
GhorpadeY., & JustinoP. (2019). Winning or buying hearts and minds? Cash transfers and political attitudes in Pakistan [WIDER working paper 91]. United Nations University.
30.
GuptaB., & MukhopadhyayA. (2016). Local funds and political competition: Evidence from the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme in India. European Journal of Political Economy, 41, 14–30. 10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2015.10.009
31.
HanZ., LinK., & TaoP. (2019). Perceived quality of governance and trust in government in rural China: A comparison between villagers and officials. Social Science Quarterly, 100(5), 1726–1743.
32.
HetheringtonM. J. (1998). The political relevance of political trust. American political Science Review, 92(4), 791–808.
33.
ImbertC. & PappJ. (2011). Estimating leakages in India’s employment guarantee. In KheraR. (Ed.), The battle for employment guarantee (pp. 269–278). Oxford University Press.
34.
JhaR., GaihaR., & PandeyM. K. (2013). Body mass index, participation, duration of work and earnings under the national rural employment guarantee scheme: Evidence from Rajasthan. Journal of Asian Economics, 26, 14–30. 10.1016/j.asieco.2013.03.001
35.
JuliaT., SumartoS., & MoodyH. (2014). Assessing the political impacts of a conditional cash transfer: Evidence from a randomized policy experiment in Indonesia. The SMERU Research Institute.
36.
KlonnerS., & OldigesC. (2019). The welfare effects of India’s rural employment guarantee [Working paper 129]. Queen Elizabeth House, University of Oxford.
37.
KoganV. (2021). Do welfare benefits pay electoral dividends? Evidence from the national food stamp program rollout. The Journal of Politics, 83(1), 58–70.
38.
KumarD., PratapB., & AggarwalA. (2021). Public trust in state governments in India: Who are more confident and what makes them confident about the government. Asian Journal of Comparative Politics, 6(2), 154–174.
39.
KumarN., RaghunathanK., ArrietaA., JilaniA., ChakrabartiS., MenonP., & QuisumbingA. R. (2019). Social networks, mobility, and political participation: The potential for women’s self-help groups to improve access and use of public entitlement schemes in India. World Development, 114, 28–41. 10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.09.023
40.
LiZ., & WuX. (2018). Social policy and political trust: Evidence from the new rural pension scheme in China. The China Quarterly, 235, 644–668. 10.1017/S0305741018000942
41.
ManacordaM., MiguelE., & VigoritoA. (2011). Government transfers and political support. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 3(3), 1–28.
42.
MathurN. (2017). Eating Money: Corruption and its categorical ‘Other’ in the leaky Indian state. Modern Asian Studies, 51(6), 1796–1817.
43.
MettlerS., & StonecashJ. M. (2008). Government program usage and political voice. Social Science Quarterly, 89(2), 273–293.
44.
MillerA. H., & ListhaugO. (1990). Political parties and confidence in government: A comparison of Norway, Sweden and the United States. British Journal of Political Science, 20(3), 357–386.
45.
MishraJ., & AttriV. (2020). Governance, public service delivery and trust in government. Studies in Indian Politics, 8(2), 186–202.
46.
MukherjeeA. K. (2017). Safety net programs in West Bengal: How much effective?. International Journal of Social Economics, 44(12), 2019–2032.
47.
MuralidharanK., NiehausP., & SukhtankarS. (2017). General equilibrium effects of (improving) public employment programs: Experimental evidence from India [Working paper 23838]. National Bureau of Economic Research.
48.
NiehausP., & SukhtankarS. (2013a). Corruption dynamics: The golden goose effect. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 5(4), 230–269.
49.
NiehausP., & SukhtankarS. (2013b). The marginal rate of corruption in public programs: Evidence from India. Journal of Public Economics, 104, 52–64. 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2013.05.001
50.
NupiaO. (2018). The allocation of conditional cash transfer programs: Political motives and voting effects. Journal of Development Perspectives, 2(1–2), 29–48.
51.
OECD (2017). Trust and public policy: How better governance can help rebuild public trust. OECD Publishing.
52.
PankajA., & TankhaR. (2010). Empowerment effects of the NREGS on women workers: A study in four states. Economic and Political Weekly, 45(30), 45–55.
53.
RavallionM. (2019). Is a decentralized right-to-work policy feasible? [Working paper 25687]. National Bureau of Economic Research.
54.
RaviS., & EnglerM. (2015). Workfare as an effective way to fight poverty: The case of India’s NREGS. World Development, 67, 57–71. 10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.09.029
55.
RiosV., IvaschenkoO., & DoyleJ. (2020). Cash transfers’ effect on government support: The case of Fiji. Disasters, 44(1), 152–178.
56.
SaibalG. (2017). Did MGNREGS improve financial inclusion?. Economic and Political Weekly, 52(12), 106–114.
57.
SchoberG. S. (2019). Conditional cash transfers, resources, and political participation in Latin America. Latin American Research Review, 54(3), 591–607.
58.
ShankarS., GaihaR., & JhaR. (2011). Information, access and targeting: The national rural employment guarantee scheme in India. Oxford Development Studies, 39(01), 69–95.
59.
SinghK. (2020). The extent of financial inclusion through MGNREGS: A district level analysis in West Bengal, India. International Journal of Social Economics, 48(1), 121–139.
60.
SpiteriJ., & BriguglioM. (2018). Does good governance foster trust in government? An empirical analysis. In GrimaS. & MaranoP. (Eds.), Governance and regulations’ contemporary issues (pp. 121–137). Emerald Publishing.
61.
SwartzT. T., BlackstoneA., UggenC., & McLaughlinH. (2009). Welfare and citizenship: The effects of government assistance on young adults’ civic participation. The Sociological Quarterly, 50(4), 633–665.
62.
VarvarigosD., & XinG. (2015). Social interactions, the evolution of trust, and economic growth [Working paper 15/05]. Department of Economics, University of Leicester.
63.
YousafM., IhsanF., & EllahiA. (2016). Exploring the impact of good governance on citizens’ trust in Pakistan. Government Information Quarterly, 33(1), 200–209.
64.
ZimmermannL. (2015). May there be victory: Government election performance and the world’s largest public-works program [Discussion paper 9161]. IZA Institute of Labour Economics.
65.
Zucco JrC. (2013). When payouts pay off: Conditional cash transfers and voting behavior in Brazil 2002–10. American Journal of Political Science, 57(4), 810–822.
