Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access
Open Access Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Restricted Access Subscription Access

Electoral Volatility:Analysis of the States Elections in India (1981-2017)


Affiliations
1 Mumbai School of Economics and Public Policy, Kalina, Mumbai 400098, Maharashtra, India
2 D.G. Ruaprel College, Mahim, Mumbai 400098, Maharashtra, India
     

   Subscribe/Renew Journal


In a multi-party democracy, high electoral volatility may emerge from existing economic and political conditions in the country. An ethnically highly diverse society like India, the voting decision is largely based on the number of parties present till the previous year of every election. Small parties result in vote division away from national parties. This paper attempts to establish a relationship between electoral volatility and the variable measuring number of effective parties at every election. It attempts to answer the question – ‘Whether the party fragmentation impacts the volatility?’ Electoral volatility of the people is taken as the dependent variable and the presence of number of effective parties at every election and with a lag of one year to every election as the independent variables. For analysis, State Assembly elections data for 30 Indian states over a period of 37 years from 1981-2017 is undertaken. The analysis supports the hypothesis and we are able to observe a very modest impact of party system on the level of electoral volatility, measured using Pedersen’s Index.
Subscription Login to verify subscription
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Acemoglu, D. and J.A. Robinson (2012), Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty, London: Profile Books Ltd.
  • Alesina, A. and R. Perotti (1993), Income Distribution, Political Instability and Investment, National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), Massachusetts, Working Paper - 4486.
  • Bernal-Verdugo, L., D. Furceri and D. Guillaume (2013), The Dynamic Effect of Social and Political Instability on Output: The Role of Reforms, IMF Working Paper – WP/13/91.
  • Chandra, K. (2005), Ethnic Parties and Democratic Stability, Perspectives on Politics, 3(2): 235-252, June.
  • Dassonneville, R. and M. Hooghe (2015), Economic Indicators and Electoral Volatility: Economic Effects on Electoral Volatility in Western Europe, 1950-2013, Comparative European Politics, (2017).
  • Dassonneville, R., A. Blais and Y. Dejaeghere (2015), Staying With the Party, Switching or Exiting? A Comparative Analysis of Determinants of Party Switching and Abstaining, Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 25(3): 387-405.
  • Debus, M., M. Stegmaier and J. Tosun (2014), Economic Voting under Coalition Governments: Evidence from Germany, Political Science Research and Methods, 2(1): 49 – 67. April.
  • Dejaeghere, Y. and R. Dassonneville (2012), The Impact of the Party System on Electoral Volatility: A Cross-Country Analysis of Inter-Election Switching, Paper prepared for presentation at the EPOP 2012 Conference, 7th-9th September, Oxford.
  • Dunleavy, P. and F. Boucek (2003), Constructing the Number of Parties, Party Politics, 9(3): 291–315.
  • Durham, J.B. (1999), Economic Growth and Political Regimes, Journal of Economic Growth, 4(1): 81-111, March.
  • Economic Surveys (2016-17), Economic Surveys (2016-17) of Maharashtra, Himachal Pradesh, Manipur, Mizoram, Nagaland, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tripura, West Bengal.
  • Ellis, S.M. and H.S. Steyn (2003), Practical Significance (effect sizes) versus or in Combination with Statistical Significance (p-values), Management Dynamics, 12(4): 51-53.
  • Engerman, S.L. and K.L. Sokoloff (2008), Debating the Role of Institutions in Political and Economic Development: Theory, History and Findings, The Annual Review of Political Science, 11: 119-135.
  • Ersson, S. (2012), Electoral Volatility in Europe: Assessments and Potential Explanations for Estimate Differences, Paper to be presented to the 2012 Elections, Public Opinion and Parties (EPOP) Conference, Oxford University, September 7 – 9.
  • Hanagodimath, S.V. and G. Kadekodi (2014), Relevance of Development for People to Vote, Centre for Multi-Disciplinary Development Research (CMDR), CMDR Monograph Series No. 73., August.
  • Hazama, Y. (2009), Economic Voting and Electoral Volatility in Turkish Provinces, IDE Discussion Paper No. – 202, May.
  • Hole, G. (2007), Eight Things You Need to Know about Interpreting Correlations, Research Skills One, Correlation Interpretation, University of Sussex, UK.
  • Jacob, J. and T. Osang (2016), Democracy and Growth: A Dynamic Panel Data Study, The Singapore Economic Review, June 2018.
  • Karadimitriou, S. (2015), Correlation in R, University of Sheffield, Stats Tutor, UK.
  • Laakso, M. and R. Taagepera (1979), “Effective” Number of Parties: A Measure with Application to West Europe, Comparative Political Study, 12(1): 3-27, April.
  • Lacy, D. and Z.D. Markovich (2016), Why Don't States Switch Sides Anymore? The Rise and Fall of American Electoral Volatility, Unpublished Manuscript, Retrieved from http://sites.dartmouth. edu/dlacy/files/2016/10/Volatility. Simple, V8. pdf (2016).
  • Mainwaring, S. and E. Zoco (2007), Political Sequences and the Stabilization of Interparty Competition: Electoral Volatility in Old and New Democracies, Party Politics, 13(2): 155-178.
  • Moricz, S. and F. Sjöholm (2014), The Effect of Elections on Economic Growth: Results from a Natural Experiment in Indonesia, Research Institute of Industrial Economics, IFN Working Paper No. 1023, 2014.
  • Nooruddin, I. and P. Chhibber (2008), Unstable Politics: Fiscal Space and Electoral Volatility in the Indian States, Comparative Political Studies, 41(8): 1069-1091, August.
  • Rai, P. and Sanjay Kumar (2017), The Decline of the Congress Party in Indian Politics, Economic and Political Weekly, 52(12), March.
  • Raval, S. and P. Salvi (2017), Political Stability and Economic Growth: Reflections on Indian Economy, MANTHAN: Journal of Commerce and Management, 4(1): 65-81, January-June.
  • Salvi, P.A. (2005), Infrastructure in India: Sector Specific Analysis, A research project sponsored by UGC (unpublished).
  • Stegmaier, M. and M. Lewis-Beck (2013), Economic Voting, Oxford Bibliographies in Political Science, Rick Valelly (Ed.), New York: Oxford University Press, September.
  • Tavits, M. (2005), The Development of Stable Party Support: Electoral Dynamics in PostCommunist Europe, American Journal of Political Science, 49(2): 283-298, April.
  • Vaishnav, M. and J. Guy (2018), Does Higher Turnout Hurt Incumbents? An Analysis of State Elections in India, Studies in Indian Politics, 6(1): 1–17.
  • Wren, A. and K.M. McElwain (2011), Voters and Parties, The Oxford Handbook of Political Science, Online Publication, September.

Abstract Views: 31

PDF Views: 0




  • Electoral Volatility:Analysis of the States Elections in India (1981-2017)

Abstract Views: 31  |  PDF Views: 0

Authors

Shreya Raval
Mumbai School of Economics and Public Policy, Kalina, Mumbai 400098, Maharashtra, India
Prakash Salvi
D.G. Ruaprel College, Mahim, Mumbai 400098, Maharashtra, India

Abstract


In a multi-party democracy, high electoral volatility may emerge from existing economic and political conditions in the country. An ethnically highly diverse society like India, the voting decision is largely based on the number of parties present till the previous year of every election. Small parties result in vote division away from national parties. This paper attempts to establish a relationship between electoral volatility and the variable measuring number of effective parties at every election. It attempts to answer the question – ‘Whether the party fragmentation impacts the volatility?’ Electoral volatility of the people is taken as the dependent variable and the presence of number of effective parties at every election and with a lag of one year to every election as the independent variables. For analysis, State Assembly elections data for 30 Indian states over a period of 37 years from 1981-2017 is undertaken. The analysis supports the hypothesis and we are able to observe a very modest impact of party system on the level of electoral volatility, measured using Pedersen’s Index.

References





DOI: https://doi.org/10.21648/arthavij%2F2019%2Fv61%2Fi3%2F185877