Colonialism, Landlords, and Public Goods Provision in India: A Controlled Comparative Analysis

Verghese, Ajay

doi:10.1080/00220388.2018.1487057

“…We adjust the classification for 5 districts in Iyer (2010): Solan, Bastar, Balangir, and the Dangs were classified as directly ruled and we reclassified them as indirectly ruled; Chamoli was classified as indirectly ruled and we reclassified it as directly ruled. For 4 of these districts our classification agrees with Castello-Climent et al ( 2018) while for the 5 th , Solan, we use the same classification as Verghese (2019).…”

Section: Data Appendixsupporting

confidence: 75%

“…While our data on direct and indirect British rule are obtained from Iyer (2010) we made some adjustments in light of some disagreement in the literature about whether a district was under direct rule or indirect rule. 2 We refer to two more recent studies, Verghese (2019) and Castello-Climent et al (2018), as well as independent sources to validate this. We adjust the classification for 5 districts in Iyer (2010): Solan, Bastar, Balangir, and the Dangs were classified as directly ruled and we reclassified them as indirectly ruled; Chamoli was classified as indirectly ruled and we reclassified it as directly ruled.…”

Section: Data Appendixmentioning

confidence: 65%

“…𝑦𝑦 𝑖𝑖,𝑗𝑗 = 𝛼𝛼 0 + 𝛽𝛽𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝑖𝑖,𝑗𝑗 + 𝛾𝛾𝑋𝑋 𝑖𝑖,𝑗𝑗 + 𝛿𝛿 𝑗𝑗 + 𝜀𝜀 𝑖𝑖,𝑗𝑗 …………….. (1) 13 The historical background for why a district in India was under direct British rule or a Princely state (under indirect rule) is discussed in detail in Iyer (2010). Also, as described in detail in the data appendix and Table A10 in the online appendix, compared to Iyer (2010) we switched classifications for 5 districts based on the evidence provided in two recent papers, Verghese (2019) and Castello-Climent et al (2018), and our own reading of the evidence on this issue. The slight difference in the classification of modern districts into directly ruled or indirectly ruled in various studies arises because some districts contain areas from both British India and Princely states.…”

Section: Iii1 Empirical Specification: Baseline Ols Level Regressionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Impact of Colonial Institutions on Economic Growth and Development in India: Evidence from Night-Lights Data

Jha¹,

Talathi²

2024

Economic Development and Cultural Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We study the implications of two historical institutions, direct British rule, and the heterogeneous land tenure institutions implemented by the British, on disparity in present day development using district level data from India. Using nightlights per capita as a proxy for district level per capita income, we find that modern districts that were historically under direct British rule had 39.47% less nightlights per capita in 1993 relative to modern districts that were historically under indirect British rule. The large gap persists even after including other controls such as educational attainment, health, and physical infrastructure. Looking at the growth pattern during 1993 to 2013, directly ruled districts had a 1.84% lower annual growth rate compared to indirectly ruled districts. As well, directly ruled districts were converging at a rate of 2% per year while indirectly ruled districts were converging at a rate of 5.7% per year. Much of the development gap between areas under indirect rule and direct rule can be accounted for by the adverse effect of landlord-based revenue collection system in the directly ruled areas.

show abstract

“…While our data on direct and indirect British rule are obtained from Iyer (2010) we made some adjustments in light of some disagreement in the literature about whether a district was under direct rule or indirect rule. 2 We refer to two more recent studies, Verghese (2019) and Castello-Climent et al (2018), as well as independent sources to validate this. We adjust the classification for 5 districts in Iyer (2010): Solan, Bastar, Balangir, and the Dangs were classified as directly ruled and we reclassified them as indirectly ruled; Chamoli was classified as indirectly ruled and we reclassified it as directly ruled.…”

Section: Data Appendixmentioning

confidence: 74%

Impact of Colonial Institutions on Economic Growth and Development in India: Evidence from Night Lights Data

Ranjan

¹

,

Talathi

²

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We study the implications of two historical institutions, direct British rule, and the heterogeneous land tenure institutions implemented by the British, on disparity in present day development using district level data from India. Using nightlights per capita as a proxy for district level per capita income, we find that modern districts that were historically under direct British rule had 39.47% less nightlights per capita in 1993 relative to modern districts that were historically under indirect British rule. The large gap persists even after including other controls such as educational attainment, health, and physical infrastructure. Looking at the growth pattern during 1993 to 2013, directly ruled districts had a 1.84% lower annual growth rate compared to indirectly ruled districts. As well, directly ruled districts were converging at a rate of 2% per year while indirectly ruled districts were converging at a rate of 5.7% per year. Much of the development gap between areas under indirect rule and direct rule can be accounted for by the adverse effect of landlord-based revenue collection system in the directly ruled areas.

show abstract

“…40 Policies that increased land inequality were not unique to the north; when the British brought central-eastern India under their control in the mid-nineteenth century, they instituted the similar malguzari system. 41 Moreover, the areas held by the British for the longest period were most likely to have landlord-based systems because British administrators who, in the shadow of the French revolution, initially feared the peasantry came under the influence of utilitarian thought as time went on. 42 Princely kingdoms utilized a variety of landholding systems but, in contrast to the British, generally treated cultivators on their lands as hereditary and did not displace them arbitrarily.…”

Section: Land Inequalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Conquest and Conflict: The Colonial Roots of Maoist Violence in India

Verghese

¹

,

Teitelbaum

²

2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Does colonialism have long-term effects on political stability? This question is addressed in a study of India's Naxalite insurgency, a Maoist rebellion characterized by its left-wing proponents as having roots in the colonial period. The article highlights three mechanisms linking colonialism with contemporary Naxalite violence-land inequality, discriminatory policies toward low-caste and tribal groups, and upper-caste-dominated administrative institutions. It analyzes how the degree of British influence relates to Naxalite conflict in 589 districts from 1980 to 2011. A positive association is found between British influence and the strength of the Naxalite rebellion across all of India, within both the "Red Corridor" region and former princely states. The results are robust to a coarsened exact matching analysis and a wide array of robustness checks. The findings call into question whether the supposedly beneficial administrative and institutional legacies of colonialism can be evaluated without reference to their social costs.

show abstract

Colonialism, Landlords, and Public Goods Provision in India: A Controlled Comparative Analysis

Cited by 4 publications

References 41 publications

Impact of Colonial Institutions on Economic Growth and Development in India: Evidence from Night-Lights Data

Impact of Colonial Institutions on Economic Growth and Development in India: Evidence from Night-Lights Data

Impact of Colonial Institutions on Economic Growth and Development in India: Evidence from Night Lights Data

Conquest and Conflict: The Colonial Roots of Maoist Violence in India

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About