Scholars have long theorized on the limits of patronage politics and the possibility of counter-mobilization it produces against clientelist strategies. Analysing the recent win of the Aam Aadmi Party in the 2020 Assembly election in Delhi, this article shows that programmatic policies of welfare can help parties to circumvent this trap and avoid targeted patronage networks. We find that this broad-based appeal increases the social base of the party to even include those segments of voters who remain aloof to patronage-based exchanges. Additionally, we test the salience of majoritarian issues in the presence of universal welfare. We find that by locating themselves on issue positions of relative advantage, and reducing the ideological distance with their chief competitor, a policy-focussed party may capture not just ideology-agnostic, but also peripheral voters who might be opposed to the other challenger. Using a logistic regression model, we find that policy concerns catapulted AAP to victory, while its ideological distance from the BJP added to this. Our analysis has significance for understanding the underlying changes to patronage-based linkages, especially in the presence of heightened ethnic appeals that increasingly characterizes electoral contexts in the country.
AiyarY., & SircarN. (2020). Understanding the decline of regional party power in the 2019 national election and beyond. Contemporary South Asia, 28(2), 209–222.
2.
BaldwinR. (2016). The great convergence. Harvard University Press.
3.
BruscoV., NazarenoM., & StokesS. C. (2004). Vote buying in Argentina. Latin American Research Review, 39(2), 66–88.
4.
BussellJ. (2019). Clients and constituents: Political responsiveness in patronage democracies. Modern South Asia.
5.
Census India. (2011a). House listing and housing census data highlights. https://www.censusindia.gov.in/2011census/hlo/hlo_highlights.html
6.
Census India. (2011b). Top 10 urbanised states in India. https://www.census2011.co.in/facts/topstateurban.html
7.
ChandraK. (2004). Why ethnic parties succeed: Patronage and ethnic head counts in India. Cambridge University Press.
8.
ChhibberP. K., & VermaR. (2018). Ideology and identity: The changing party systems of India. Oxford University Press.
9.
ChhibberP. K., & VermaR. (2019). The rise of the second dominant party system in India: BJP’s new social coalition in 2019. Studies in Indian Politics, 7(2), 131–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/2321023019874628
10.
CorbridgeS., & HarrisR. I. (2000). Reinventing India: Liberalization, Hindu nationalism and popular democracy. Polity Press.
11.
Deccan Herald. (2020). “Delhi govt spent Rs 659.02 crore on ads since 2012–13; 77% during Kejriwal’s stint from 2015: RTI” Deccan Herald. https://www.deccanherald.com/national/delhi-govt-spent-rs-65902-crore-on-ads-since-2012-13-77-during-kejriwals-stint-from-2015-rti-924326.html
12.
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.
13.
Díaz-CayerosA., EstévezF., & MagaloniB. (2006). From clientelism to entitlements: The politics of social transfers in Mexico, 1989-2006. Book manuscript.
14.
DunningT., & NilekaniJ. (2013). Ethnic quotas and political mobilization: Caste, parties, and distribution in Indian village councils. American Political Science Review, 107(1), 35–56.
15.
ElliottC. (2011). Moving from clientelist politics toward a welfare regime: Evidence from the 2009 assembly election in Andhra Pradesh. Commonwealth & Comparative Politics, 49(1), 48–79.
16.
FrankelF., & RaoM. S. A. (1989). Dominance and state power in India: Decline of a social order.
17.
GuptaP., & ShrimankarD. (2019, August). How nationalism helped the BJP. Seminar, 720, 38–43.
18.
HeathA.RogerM., & CurticeJ. (2001). The rise of the new labour. Oxford University Press.
19.
HeathO., TillinL. (2018). Institutional performance and vote buying in India. Studies in Comparative International Development, 53, 90–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12116-017-9254-x
20.
KitscheltH. (2000). Linkages between citizens and politicians in democratic polities. Comparative Political Studies, 33(6–7), 845–879.
21.
KitscheltH., & WilkinsonS. I. (Eds.). (2007). Patrons, clients and policies: Patterns of democratic accountability and political competition. Cambridge University Press.
22.
KumarS. (2013). Changing electoral politics in Delhi: From caste to class. SAGE Publications India.
KuoD. (2018). Clientelism, capitalism, and democracy: The rise of programmatic politics in the United States and Britain. Cambridge University Press.
25.
LevitskyS. (2007). From populism to clientelism? The transformation of labor-based party linkages in Latin America. Patrons, clients, and policies: Patterns of democratic accountability and political competition (pp. 206–226). Cambridge University Press.
26.
ManorJ. (2000). Small-time political fixers in India’s states: “Towel over armpit.”Asian Survey, 40(5), 816–835.
27.
ManorJ. (2010). Beyond clientelism: Digvijay Singh’s participatory, pro-poor strategy in Madhya Pradesh. In PriceP. & RuudA. (Eds.), Power and influence in India (pp. 193–213). Routledge.
28.
ManorJ. (2014). Key issues in the study of state politics in India in politics in South Asia: Culture, rationality and conceptual flow. Springer International Publishing.
29.
MedinaL., & StokesS. (2007). Monopoly and monitoring: An approach to political clientelism. In KitscheltH. & WilkinsonS. (Eds.), Patrons, clients and policies: Patterns of democratic accountability and political competition (pp. 68–83). Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511585869.003
30.
MigdalJ. S. (1988). Strong societies and weak states: State-society relations and state capabilities in the third world. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvzsmdzz
NSSO. (2018). Household social consumption: Education in India as part of the 75th round of National Sample Survey – from July 2017 to June 2018. https://www.mospi.gov.in/sites/default/files/NSS75252E/KI_Education_75th_Final.pdf
33.
PalshikarS. (2004). Majoritarian middle ground?Economic and Political Weekly, 39(51), 5426–5430. Retrieved June6, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4415926
34.
PiliavskyA. (Ed.). (2014). Patronage as politics in South Asia. Cambridge University Press.
35.
RemmerK. L. (2007). The political economy of patronage: Expenditure patterns in the Argentine provinces, 1983–2003. The Journal of Politics, 69(2), 363–377.
36.
SardesaiS., & MohantyB. (2019). Delhi governance survey. The Indian Express. https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/delhi-governance-survey-testing-the-twin-pillars-of-health-and-education-6160608/
37.
SchumacherG., & van KersbergenK. (2016). Do mainstream parties adapt to the welfare chauvinism of populist parties?Party Politics, 22(3), 300–312. DOI: 10.1177/1354068814549345
38.
ShefterM. (1977). Party and patronage: Germany, England, and Italy. Politics & Society, 7(4), 403–451.
39.
StokesS. C. (2007). Political clientelism. The Oxford handbook of political science.
40.
StokesS. C., DunningT., NazarenoM., & BruscoV. (2013). Brokers, voters, and clientelism: The puzzle of distributive politics. Cambridge University Press.
41.
ThachilT., & TeitelbaumE. (2015). Ethnic parties and public spending: New theory and evidence from the Indian states. Comparative Political Studies, 48(11), 1389–1420. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414015576743
42.
UdupaS. (2014). Aam aadmi: Decoding the media logics. Economic and Political Weekly, 49(7), 13–15.
43.
WagnerM., & MeyerT. M. (2014). Which issues do parties emphasise? Salience strategies and party organisation in multiparty systems. West European Politics, 37(5), 1019–1045.
44.
Weitz-ShapiroR. (2014). Curbing clientelism in Argentina: Politics, poverty, and social policy. Cambridge University Press.
45.
WyattA. (2013). Combining clientelist and programmatic politics in Tamil Nadu, South India. Commonwealth & Comparative Politics, 51(1), 27–55.
46.
YadavY., & PalshikarS. (2009). Between fortuna and virtu: Explaining the congress’ ambiguous victory in 2009. Economic and Political Weekly, 44(39), 33–46.
47.
ZiegfeldA. (2016). Why regional parties?. Cambridge University Press.
