Colonialism and Armed Conflict in the Indian Countryside

Verghese, Ajay; Teitelbaum, Emmanuel

doi:10.2139/ssrn.2468133

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Iversen et al (2013) challenged BI’s finding, which they find is sensitive to the coding of village-based systems. Verghese and Teitelbaum (2014), Sarbahi (2016), and Mukherjee (2018) have engaged in a contentious debate on the influence of zamindari tenure on armed conflict.…”

Section: Land Tenure In Colonial Indiamentioning

confidence: 99%

Land, State Capacity, and Colonialism: Evidence From India

Lee

2018

Comparative Political Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many authors have argued that colonial institutions influenced contemporary economic outcomes by influencing levels of economic inequality and political conflict. Such accounts neglect an additional important mechanism, differences in state capacity. These two mechanisms of colonial persistence are examined in the context of India, where colonial land tenure arrangements are widely thought to influence contemporary outcomes through class conflict. However, land tenure institutions were also associated with differences in state capacity: In landlord-dominated areas, the colonial state had little or no presence at the village level. An analysis of agricultural outcomes in Indian districts, using a set of original measures of colonial state capacity, shows that while land tenure in isolation is a surprisingly weak predictor of agricultural success, state capacity has a strong and consistent positive association with 20th-century economic activity. The findings reinforce the importance of colonial rule in influencing contemporary state capacity and the importance of state capacity for development.

show abstract

Section: Land Tenure In Colonial Indiamentioning

confidence: 99%