Politics of Dignity: How Status Inequality shaped Redistributive Politics in India

How does social hierarchy affect redistribution? Mainstream theories of welfare politics explain redistribution through the material interests of social classes, assuming wealthier groups oppose redistribution while poorer groups support it. In societies shaped by long histories of caste, race or other forms of ascriptive discrimination, however, status inequality may also play an important role.

In this paper, Poulomi Chakrabarti examines how status inequality has shaped redistributive politics in India. Drawing on more than 50 years of state-level data (1960–2012), newly digitized public expenditure records, original datasets on caste representation and quotas, and over 24 months of fieldwork across India, the paper explores how the country’s caste system has influenced political incentives, representation and redistributive spending.

KEY FINDINGS

• The findings suggest that reducing inequality in hierarchical societies requires addressing not only material deprivation, but also questions of dignity and representation within state institutions.
• Status inequality was a stronger predictor of redistribution than income inequality. States with greater upper-caste dominance consistently spent less on social sectors, suggesting that social hierarchy independently shapes welfare outcomes.
• Upper-caste political elites were more likely to oppose redistribution. The paper argues that historically dominant groups seek to preserve their social privilege, a dynamic described as the politics of dominance.
• Politically mobilized lower-caste groups prioritized representation within the state. Rather than focusing solely on redistribution, they pursued greater descriptive representation in public institutions, a strategy the paper calls the politics of dignity.
• Representation in the bureaucracy supported social development. States where politically mobilized Other Backward Classes (OBCs) gained both legislative representation and caste-based quotas in the bureaucracy spent more on social sectors.
• A representative bureaucracy can help weaken barriers to redistribution. Qualitative evidence suggests that greater representation reduced elite patronage networks and enabled historically excluded groups to exert greater influence over policy implementation.

AUTHOR

• Poulomi Chakrabarti, Assistant Professor, Ashoka University.