The article surveys the comparative subnational literature on India and suggests some promising paths forward. One, careful selection of sub-state regions can improve the legitimacy of inter-state comparisons and increase the validity of causal claims regarding state-specific governance and political economy. Two, there is greater scope for intra-state comparisons that control for state-specific factors and thereby identify more local, context-specific factors that drive political and other outcomes. Three, the roles and limitations of both causal and non-causal research designs need to be better understood in the subnational context. Four, for serious comparison, it is imperative to explore only a few carefully selected primary units of analysis. While this highlights the importance of the traditional comparative case study approach, the implied qualitative/quantitative dichotomy is false: methods based on inferential statistics can and should be usefully nested in a causal comparative case study framework. Five, greater emphasis on process tracing can improve insights from subnational comparisons.
AhluwaliaIsher Judge. (2011). Report on Indian urban infrastructure and services. New Delhi: Government of India.
2.
AhluwaliaMontek Singh. (2000). Economic performance of states in post-reforms period.Economic and Political Weekly, 35(19), 1637–1648.
3.
AtkinsonMichael M., MarchildonGregory P., BelandDaniel, PhillipsPeter W.B., RasmussenKenneth A., & McNuttKathleen. (2013). Governance and public policy in Canada: A view from the provinces. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
4.
BanerjeeAbhijit V., GertlerPaul J., & GhatakMaitreesh. (2002). Empowerment and efficiency: Tenancy reform in West Bengal.Journal of Political Economy, 110(2), 239–280.
5.
BanerjeeAbhijit V., & IyerLakshmi. (2005). History, institutions and economic performance: The legacy of colonial land tenure systems in India.American Economic Review, 95(4), 1190–1213.
6.
BesleyTimothy, & BurgessRobin. (2000). Land reform, poverty reduction and growth: Evidence from India.Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(2), 389–430.
7.
BesleyTimothy, & BurgessRobin. (2002). The political economy of government responsiveness: Theory and evidence from India.Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(4), 1415–1452.
8.
BhattacharyaB.B., & SakthivelS. (2004). Regional growth and disparity in India: Comparison of pre-and post-reform decades.Economic and Political Weekly, 39(10), 1071–1077.
9.
BhavnaniRikhil R. (2009). Do electoral quotas work after they are withdrawn? Evidence from a natural experiment in India.American Political Science Review, 103(1), 23–35.
10.
BlochMarc. (1934). Une etude regionale: Geographie ou histoire?Annales d’Histoire Economiqueet Sociale, 6(25), 81–85.
11.
BremanJan. (2007). The poverty regime in village India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
12.
CarswellGrace. (2013). Dalits and local labour markets in rural India: Experiences from the Tiruppur textile region in Tamil Nadu.Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 38(2), 325–338.
13.
CartwrightNancy. (2010). What are randomised controlled trials good for?Philosophical Studies, 147(1), 59–70.
14.
ChabalPatrick, & DalozJean-Pascal. (2006). Culture troubles: Politics and the interpretation of meaning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
15.
ChandraKanchan. (2005). Ethnic parties and democratic stability.Perspectives on Politics, 3(2), 235–252.
16.
ChatterjeeAbhishek. (2011). Ontology, epistemology, and multimethod research in political science.Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 43(1), 73–99.
17.
ChattopadhyayRaghabendra, & DufloEsther. (2004). Women as policy makers: Evidence from a randomized policy experiment in India.Econometrica, 72(5), 1409–1443.
18.
ChhibberPradeep K., & NooruddinIrfan. (2004). Do party systems count? The number of parties and government performance in the Indian states.Comparative Political Studies, 37(2), 152–187.
19.
ChhibberPradeep K., ShastriSandeep, & SissonRichard. (2004). Federal arrangements and the provision of public goods in India.Asian Survey, 44(3), 339–352.
20.
CollierDavid (1993). The comparative method. In FinifterAda W. (Ed.), Political sciences: The state of the discipline (Vol. II, pp. 105–119). Washington, DC: American Political Science Association.
21.
CollierDavid, BradyHenry E., & SeawrightJason (2010). Sources of leverage in causal inference: Toward an alternative view of methodology. In BradyH.E. & CollierD. (Eds), Rethinking social inquiry: Diverse tools, shared standards (pp. 161–199). Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.
22.
DeatonAngus. (2003). Regional poverty estimates for India, 1999–2000. Mimeo, Research Program in Development Studies, Princeton University.
23.
DeatonAngus. (2010). Instruments, randomization, and learning about development.Journal of Economic Literature, 48(2), 424–455.
24.
DesaiManali. (2006). State formation and radical democracy in India, 1860–1990. London: Routledge.
25.
DrèzeJean, & SenAmartya. (1995). India: Economic development and social opportunity. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
26.
DunningThad. (2008). Improving causal inference: Strengths and limitations of natural experiments.Political Research Quarterly, 61(2), 282–293.
27.
ElsterJon. (1989). The cement of society: A study of social order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28.
EpsteinT. Scarlett, SuryanarayanaA.P., & ThimmegowdaT. (1998). Village voices: Forty years of rural transformation in south India. New Delhi: SAGE.
29.
FearonJames D., & LaitinDavid D. (2008). Integrating qualitative and quantitative methods. In Box-SteffensmeierJanet, BradyHenry E. & CollierDavid (Eds), The Oxford handbook of political methodology (pp. 756–776). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
30.
GerringJohn. (2007). Case study research: Principles and practices. New York: Cambridge University Press.
31.
GibsonEdward L. (2012). Boundary control: Subnational authoritarianism in federal democracies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
32.
HallPeter A. (2003). Aligning ontology and methodology in comparative research. In MahoneyJames & RueschemeyerDietrich (Eds), Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences (pp. 373–406). New York: Cambridge University Press.
33.
HarrissJohn. (2000). How much difference does politics make? Regime differences across Indian states and rural poverty reduction. DESTIN Working Paper 00-01, London School of Economics.
34.
ImaiKosuke, KeeleLuke, TingleyDustin, & YamamotoTeppei. (2011). Unpacking the black box of causality: Learning about causal mechanisms from experimental and observational studies.American Political Science Review, 105(4), 765–789.
35.
JacobSuraj. (2012). Development outcomes and welfare policy regimes: A natural experiment in south India. Paper presented at the Centre for Development Studies, Thiruvananthapuram.
36.
JacobSuraj. (2015, January9–10). Towards a comparative subnational perspective for India. Paper presented at the conference on ‘Institutions, Public Policy & State Capacity: A Sub-National Approach to Understanding Governance in India,’Azim Premji University, Bengaluru.
37.
JaffrelotChristophe. (2009). Introduction. In Rise of the plebeians? Changing face of Indian legislative assemblies (pp. 1–26). New Delhi: Routledge.
38.
JayaramanRajshri, & LanjouwPeter. (1999). The evolution of poverty and inequality in Indian villages.The World Bank Research Observer, 14(1), 1–30.
39.
JenkinsRob (Ed.). (2004). Regional reflections: Comparing politics across India’s states. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
40.
KailashK.K. (2011a). Varieties of comparative state politics research in India.Seminar, 620(April), 66–71.
41.
KailashK.K. (2011b). Federal calculations in state level coalition governments.India Review, 10(3), 246–282.
42.
KingGary, KeohaneRobert O., & VerbaSidney. (1994). Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
43.
KitscheltHerbert, & WilkinsonSteven Ian (Eds). (2007). Patrons, clients, and policies: Patterns of democratic accountability and political competition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
44.
KohliAtul. (1987). State and poverty in India: The politics of reform. New York: Cambridge University Press.
45.
KohliAtul. (1990a). Democracy and discontent: India’s growing crisis of governability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46.
KohliAtul (1990b). From elite activism to democratic consolidation: The rise of reform communism in West Bengal. In FrankelFrancine R. & RaoM.S.A. (Eds), Dominance and state power in modern India: Decline of a social order (pp. 367–415). New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
47.
KohliAtul. (2004). State-directed development: Political power and industrialization in the global periphery. New York: Cambridge University Press.
48.
KohliAtul. (2012). Poverty amid plenty in the new India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
49.
KumarAshutosh (2011). Introduction. In KumarAshutosh (Ed.), Rethinking state politics in India: Regions within regions (pp. 35–54). New Delhi: Routledge.
50.
LiebermanEvan S. (2005). Nested analysis as a mixed-method strategy for comparative research.American Political Science Review, 99(3), 435–452.
51.
LijphartArend. (1971). Comparative politics and the comparative method.American Political Science Review, 65(3), 682–693.
52.
LinzJuan J., & de MiguelAmando (1966). Within-nation differences and comparisons: The eight Spains. In MerrittRichard L. & RokkanStein (eds), Comparing nations: The use of quantitative data in cross-national research (pp. 267–319). New Haven: Yale University Press.
53.
LipsetSeymour Martin. (1950). Agrarian socialism: The cooperative commonwealth federation in Saskatchewan. Berkeley: University of California Press.
54.
MahoneyJames. (1999). Nominal, ordinal, and narrative appraisal in macro-causal analysis.American Journal of Sociology, 104(4), 1154–1196.
55.
MahoneyJames. (2012). The logic of process tracing tests in the social sciences.Sociological Methods & Research, 41(4), 570–597.
56.
MallickRoss. (1990). Limits to radical intervention: Agricultural taxation in West Bengal.Development and Change, 21(1), 147–164.
57.
MillJohn Stuart. (1843/1872). The system of logic, ratiocinative and inductive: Being a connected view of the principles of evidence, and the methods of scientific investigation. London: Longmans, Green.
58.
MooreBarrington, Jr. (1966). Social origins of dictatorship and democracy: Lord and peasant in the making of the modern world. Boston: Beacon Press.
59.
MosseDavid. (2003). The rule of water: Statecraft, ecology and collective action in south India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
60.
NigamAditya, & YadavYogendra. (1999). Electoral politics in Indian states, 1989–99.Economic and Political Weekly, 34(34–35), 2391–2392.
61.
NooruddinIrfan, & ChhibberPradeep K. (2008). Unstable politics: Fiscal space and electoral volatility in the Indian states.Comparative Political Studies, 41(8), 1069–1091.
62.
NyiriPal. (2013). Lateral visions: Juxtaposition as method.Ethnography, 14(3), 369–383.
63.
O’DonnellGuillermo. (2001). Counterpoints: Selected essays on authoritarianism and democratization. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
64.
PaiSudha. (1989). Towards a theoretical framework for the study of state politics in India: Some observations.Indian Journal of Political Science, 50(1), 94–109.
65.
PaiSudha. (2004). Dalit question and political response: Comparative study of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh.Economic and Political Weekly, 39(11), 1141–1150.
66.
PalshikarSuhas, & DeshpandeRajeshwari. (2009, December21–22). Redefining state politics in India: Shift towards comparisons. Introductory Note for Seminar on ‘Contextualizing Maharashtra: Comparisons across States’.
67.
PetersGuy. (1998). Comparative politics, theory and method. New York: New York University Press.
68.
PickerGiovanni. (2014). Rethinking ethnographic comparison: Two cities, five years, one ethnographer.Journal of Contemporary Ethnography. Retrieved 19August2014, from http://jce.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/08/14/0891241614548105.abstract
69.
PrzeworskiAdam, & TeuneHenry. (1970). The logic of comparative social inquiry. New York: Wiley-Interscience.
70.
RaginCharles C. (1987). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press.
71.
RaoVijayendra, & BanRadu. (2007). The political construction of caste in south India. Mimeo, World Bank.
72.
RavallionMartin, & DattGaurav. (2000). When is growth pro-poor? Evidence from the diverse experiences of Indian states. World Bank Working Paper, Washington, DC.
73.
ReddySanjay G. (2012). Randomise this! OnPoor Economics. Review of Agrarian Studies, 2(2), 60–73.
74.
RosenzweigMark R. (2012). Thinking small: A review of Poor Economics by Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo. Journal of Economic Literature, 50(1), 115–127.
75.
RuudArild Engelsen. (1994). Land and power: The Marxist conquest of rural Bengal.Modern Asian Studies, 28(2), 357–380.
76.
SartoriGiovanni. (1970). Concept misformation in comparative politics.The American Political Science Review, 4(4), 1033–1053.
77.
SekhonJasjeet S. (2004). Quality meets quantity: Case studies, conditional probability, and counterfactuals.Perspectives on Politics, 2(2), 281–293.
78.
SinhaAseema. (2005). The regional roots of developmental politics in India: A divided leviathan (pp. 128–133). Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
79.
SinhaAseema. (2015). Scaling up: Beyond the subnational comparative method for India.Studies in Indian Politics, 3(1).
80.
SkocpolTheda. (1979). States and social revolutions: A comparative analysis of France, Russia and China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
81.
SkocpolTheda, & SomersMargaret. (1980). The uses of comparative history in macrosocial inquiry.Comparative Studies in Society and History, 22(2), 174–197.
82.
SnyderRichard. (2001). Scaling down: The subnational comparative method.Studies in Comparative International Development, 36(1), 93–110.
83.
SørensenEstrid. (2008). Multi-sited comparison of ‘doing regulation’.Comparative Sociology, 7(3), 311–337.
84.
TillinLouise. (2013). National and subnational comparative politics: Why, what and how.Studies in Indian Politics, 1(1), 235–240.
85.
VarshneyAshutosh. (2002). Ethnic conflict and civic life: Hindus and Muslims in India. New Haven: Yale University Press.
86.
VatterAdrian, & Stadelmann-SteffenIsabelle. (2013). Subnational patterns of democracy in Austria, Germany and Switzerland.West European Politics, 36(1), 71–96.
87.
WadeRobert. (1994). Village republics: Economic conditions for collective action in south India. San Francisco: Institute for Contemporary Studies.
88.
WilkinsonSteven (2009). Data and the study of Indian politics. In JayalNiraja Gopal & MehtaPratap Bhanu (Eds), The Oxford companion to politics in India (pp. 587–599). New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
89.
YadavYogendra, & PalshikarSuhas. (2003). Towards a theoretical framework for the study of state politics in India: Some observations.Journal of Indian School of Political Economy, 15(1–2), 5–45.
90.
YanowDvora (2014). Interpretive analysis and comparative research. In EngeliIsabelle & RothmayrChristine (Eds), Comparative policy studies: Conceptual and methodological challenges (pp. 131–159). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
91.
YinRobert K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
