If we imagine welfare and governance occurring along a continuum, the state represents the supply side, with specific roles and responsibilities. Citizens are at the other end of this continuum representing the demand side, with a set of claims and expectations from the state. This defines state-citizenship linkages in terms of “who gets what, when, and how” (a classic postulation by H. D. Lasswell,Footnote ¹ still relevant today) and what T. H. Marshall describes as “social citizenship.”Footnote ² To be sure, in both scale and reach, the state's public policy programs have expanded in manifold ways. How does this two-way continuum (represented by the state and citizens) operate in a diverse, multiethnic postcolonial democracy such as India? Distribution of goods and services in India is uneven and patchy, with considerable variation across regions and social groups. Even when goods and services are distributed, it is along caste or ethnic lines or on a quid pro quo basis in a clientelistic manner, mostly in exchange for votes.Footnote ³ Yet another view examines the consequential role of intermediaries or brokers acting as links between the state and society. Equity is hardly the hallmark of governance and development in India. With numerous social groups still persisting on the periphery, along with the historical legacy of the caste system, inclusion of such groups in the mainstream poses a challenge. Another obstacle is the varying degree of state capacity.

The four books discussed in this review engage with these challenges from different vantage points. Contributing to the question of state-citizen linkages, Gabrielle Kruks-Wisner's Claiming the State examines the patterns of citizen claim making at the grass roots. Similarly, Jennifer Bussell's Clients and Constituents unravels a frequent practice of constituency service that entails top politicians facilitating services and ameliorating grievances for citizens. Both books present an alternative to the dominant view of citizens as the passive beneficiaries of goods and services provided by the benevolent state. Francesca R. Jenusius, in Social Justice through Inclusion, tackles the inclusion of historically excluded social groups by examining the impact of constituency quotas in the empowerment and mainstreaming of historically oppressed social groups. Finally, Prerna Singh, in How Solidarity Works for Welfare, presents a nuanced perspective on subnational state capacity as a consequence of solidarity or a strongly forged regional identity.

Based on survey results and field insights from the subnational state of Rajasthan, Kruks-Wisner explores a number of questions in Claiming the State: When, how, and why do citizens make claims on the state? What explains the variation in citizen claim making? And what strategies are deployed by citizens to make claims on the state?

It is puzzling that the degree of citizen claim making varies within the same state despite similar sociopolitical, geographical, cultural, and administrative structures. Better service delivery in some parts provides a demonstrative value to the residents of other areas where delivery of goods and services is relatively suboptimal. This, in turn, leads to “a sense of grievance—and, by extension, sense of entitlement” (Kruks-Wisner, p. 19), resulting in greater aspiration of citizens toward the entitlement from the state that also enhances their capabilities for further claim making.

This pattern varies, however. It is argued that the “social and spatial exposure” of citizens explains this variation (Kruks-Wisner, p. 19 and elaborated in chapter 5). Citizens’ aspirations and capabilities for claim making are heightened in cases in which citizens have greater social mobility beyond their village boundaries. This work makes a significant contribution to the rich corpus of literature on social capital by tracing a unique process of citizens traversing social and spatial boundaries—not as bonding insular ties within a group but bridging ties beyond the social and spatial boundaries. This makes citizens aware of their entitlements, or the lack thereof, especially in areas where state resources are available but unevenly distributed. This exposure stimulates citizen claim making. That this phenomenon was observed in Rajasthan, which had a legacy of insular feudal pockets where citizens’ mobility was restricted within these enclaves, makes the case even more puzzling and speaks to the robustness of the theory offered.

Expansion of welfare programs along with democratic decentralization has further expanded the breath of institutional terrain in what has been termed the devolution of funds, functions, and functionaries. This has deepened state-society interactions, engagements, and citizen participation. Coupled with the uneven distribution of welfare at the grass roots, state-citizen linkages take the shape of citizen claim making. Exposure beyond the community and locality contribute to citizens’ learning through knowledge, information, and exposure to various state channels that build both aspirations and capabilities. In a sense, exposure creates an opportunity structure for claim making.

Kruks-Wisner's detailed account in chapter 6 shows significant variation in social and spatial exposure driven by various structural, political, and institutional factors. The survey results from the districts demonstrate that the overall incidence of claim making is high. However, the “repertoires” of claim making are varied ranging from initiating direct contact with the local authorities to mediated ones through brokers, associations, and NGOs. Often, multiple strategies are deployed, which points to a considerable “room for maneuverability.” For instance, citizens who approach the Gram Panchayat (GP, a locally elected village body) also contact the representatives of the political parties. This indicates the intertwining of GPs with the political parties. Significantly, the centrality of GPs at the grass roots can be ascertained from the fact that 65 percent of those surveyed approached the village bodies to make claims.

In Clients and Constituents, Bussell studies similar patterns of claim making and political responsiveness. The state holds discretion over the distribution of goods and services. However, the distribution of goods and services is neither neutral nor universal. It is used instrumentally as a political tool for electoral gains. Bussell uses a fresh lens to understand the relationship between politicians and citizens. In this case, political responsiveness of politicians is nonpartisan, nonpreferential, and not contingent on any specific political or social preferences.

This is corroborated through field insights elaborated in chapter 3. This relationship manifests regularly in meetings between politicians and citizens, held commonly at the politician's residence. Based on the subnational cases of Bihar, Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh, and Karnataka, Bussell shows that in these meetings, citizens’ demands and grievances are addressed immediately, transcending clientelistic or patronage considerations. Bihar, Jharkhand, and Uttar Pradesh are among the least developed regions in India and known for their entrenched and deep clientelistic networks. Karnataka is comparatively more developed; however, it is not free from prejudiced and preferential distribution of state benefits. In such locations, we would not expect to find noncontingent political responsiveness by politicians who transcend patronage politics. On the contrary, Bussell's research reveals a nonpartisan and noncontingent response to citizens’ requests by top politicians ensuring access and extending programmatic welfare to citizens. Direct political responsiveness coexists, along with patronage and clientelistic tendencies that serve as an important channel to distribute goods and services.

“Shadowing” high-level politicians reveals that they spend a substantial amount of time (one-fifth to one-third of their total time, on average, see table 2.1) in dealing with the constituents “without regard to a person's political behavior or preferences” (Bussell, p. 15). For example, a legislator from Delhi spends almost quarter of his day interacting with his constituents. Likewise, a politician from the state of Assam spends his entire day on such meetings (Bussell, p. 43). Citizens usually approach high-level politicians to seek assistance for accessing goods and services as a last resort when it is being denied (or blocked) at the local level. This assistance can take varied forms, ranging from simply signing the documents to placing a call (or writing a letter) directly to the concerned official to address bureaucratic delays in service delivery. (Bussell provides an elaborate picture in tables 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5.) Bussell argues that benefits provided through the constituency channel are substantial and serve as an important link in an otherwise nonprogrammatic and discretionary distributive politics. Bussell further argues that the constituency services serve as a “conduit” in the context of limited accountability where goods and services are distributed in a clientelistic and partisan manner to specific groups of voters. To be sure, constituency services exist and operate in a patron-client world contributing to “making patronage democracy work” (Bussell, p. 334).

The inclusion of historically excluded communities poses yet another governance challenge. This is especially important in deeply divided hierarchical societies, such as India, where caste divides run deep. One solution that has emerged since independence is the practice of affirmative action through the use of targeted quotas. To fulfill this objective, policy makers established reserved electoral constituencies for the Scheduled Castes (SCs), the official category assigned to Dalits. However, has the change in legal norms likewise shifted embedded social norms? In other words, is the change both de jure and de facto? Jensenius delves deep into these questions in Social Justice through Inclusion and critically evaluates the extent, impact, and outcomes of such quotas.

Jensenius suggests that, by design, India follows “policies of group integration” as opposed to “policies of group representation” in which elected politicians are accountable to a specific group of electorates (Jensenius, p. 16). In this case, even if government positions are reserved for SC candidates, they still must appeal to voters from all strata of society. Such a design incentivizes the mainstream parties to encourage inclusion at the level of voters and the party's candidates. It is demonstrated here that the policies of group integration are of long-term benefit through their “moderating, or centripetal, effect–creating incentives for the gradual integration of SC politicians into the mainstream political elite” (Jensenius, p. 3).

What are the outcomes of this institutional design? Drawing on Nancy Fraser, Jensenius examines the outcomes based on three dimensions: redistribution (or social justice), political participation, and recognition.Footnote ⁴ These patterns are traced over time through matching data collected from constituencies during the pre-delimitation period in 1971, and specifically from SC constituencies when new delimitation boundaries were drawn in 1974. In addition, election data of contesting candidates are collated from the 1960s up to 2013. Matching evidence of voter-level attitudes from existing surveys and studies were taken into consideration as well. Both the scale and richness of the data are matched by corroborating accounts obtained through field interviews.

Jansenius indicates that political participation of the SCs through the quota system indeed led to their gradual mainstreaming, so that SC constituencies have become equally competitive. However, the data on rerunning candidates reveal that SC candidates are less competitive than their non-SC counterparts. Uniformity in the distribution of cabinet positions is another indicator that suggests parity between the SC and general politicians. It is shown that SC representation in the cabinet is low compared with the non-SC category, and it is especially sparse at high positions. On contrary, a historical analysis of portfolio distribution in Uttar Pradesh shows that SC-oriented parties in government (such as the Bahujan Samaj Party) results in an increase in the proportion of SC representation in the cabinet. Finally, perusing existing survey results, Jensenius suggests that in absolute terms, caste discrimination has been reduced in the SC-reserved areas. Jensenius persuasively brings out the nuances in both the expectations and outcomes of the quotas, but she also demonstrates that such quotas can be treated, at best, as a glass half full.

Another rich corpus of scholarly literature in the comparative tradition explains the variation in the development outcomes. For instance, Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson seek to explain this variation and unravel the puzzle of why some nations are better off than others.Footnote ⁵ Even more puzzling is the subnational variation with similar central institutions, programs and policies, shared histories, and a central bureaucracy. India—a parliamentary democracy with its federal-bicameral polity, central civil services, common state institutions, and shared history of being a British colony—presents a valid case for exploring such subnational variation. Despite numerous public policy programs at both the central and state level, welfare and development outcomes in India is highly uneven. Social development in some states is equivalent to those of middle-income industrialized countries, while some others can be equated with the prevailing conditions in the sub-Saharan Africa. What explains this uneven development trajectory? In How Solidarity Works for Welfare, Singh problematizes the existing arguments around the role of the class, or the hindering consequences of identity, regime type, state institutions, and path-dependent explanations to suggest that solidarity plays a consequential role in social welfare policy and development outcomes. This book conceptualizes social development in terms of education and health outcomes.

By examining the divergent subnational cases of Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Rajasthan, Bihar, and Uttar Pradesh, Singh argues that “understanding how the shared solidarity that emerges from a collective identification can generate a politics of the common good” (p. 5). Shared identities cultivate a “communal spirit” and solidarity that is consequential in generating a sense of common interests. This is described as “oneness” that fosters a sense of mutual obligation. Elites that are bonded by mutual solidarity are more likely to push for common good and progressive social policies. At another level, a shared sense of solidarity results in heightened sociopolitical consciousness and increased citizen participation in the state's social policies. Fractured solidarity and identity, on the other hand, leads to different outcomes. In this sense, welfare is an outcome of both the state's top-down initiatives and bottom-up citizens involvement (as depicted in figure 2.1, p. 32).

The cases examined in Singh's book raise several pertinent questions. Why, despite their similar start in the late nineteenth century, did the states of Tamil Nadu and Kerala achieved greater development than other states? Even between these two states, how come Kerala eventually surpassed Tamil Nadu, especially when Kerala was worse off than Tamil Nadu in the 1870s? What explains the poor development in the states of Rajasthan, Bihar, and Uttar Pradesh? And among these laggard states, why is Uttar Pradesh relatively worse off than Rajasthan and Bihar? How did Rajasthan make gains starting from the 1990s? Divergence within and across these subnational cases can be explained and understood through the forged regional solidarity and shared social identity.

For example, Singh shows that Kerala in the late nineteenth century had deep caste divides, low solidarity, and diminished social development. As a result, there was no support or demand for collective development or social welfare. This started changing with the emergence of Malayali nationalism that instilled a sense of equality and access to social services for all transcending the caste boundaries. Tamil Nadu had a similar path precipitated by forged solidarity stimulated by the emergence of Tamil nationalism. Subnationalism in both these states emerged as a result of the inter-elite competition for sociopolitical domination. Once settled, the interest maximizing elites redefined “welfare not only in terms of advancing individual or group interests but also collective subnational welfare” (Singh, p. 11). On the contrary, Uttar Pradesh's elite evoked religion as an identity rather than the subnational symbols. Broadly, shared solidarity, with common objectives and mutual obligation was missing in the states of Rajasthan, Bihar, and Uttar Pradesh. Fragmented subnational identity resulted in weak political commitment toward social welfare. If regional solidarity is forged successfully, even weak states can show improvements in social welfare and development as demonstrated in the laggard cases of Rajasthan and Bihar.

Marshaling substantial grassroots field insights and data, the four books reviewed here provide robust answers and explanations to the perennial questions of governance, development, and welfare in India. Moving beyond the dominant view of citizens as passive beneficiaries in a patron-client relationship, these books provide us with alternative perspectives by exploring dynamic and synergetic state-citizen linkages. Their arguments also raise some relevant questions, suggesting directions for future research. In this light, and on account of my own proclivities, I am inclined to flag some pertinent points. Kruks-Wisner rightly points out that citizens’ claim making can be located within the existing precondition of the state's presence and its reach. In other words, it is the unevenness of state's reach that generates claim making. This convinces us to think deeply about the state and the consequential impact of politico-bureaucratic processes within the state that might have resulted in this unevenness in the first place.

Another important question is, who has access to top politicians for constituency services, as explicated by Bussell? Likewise, Jensenius observes responsiveness from SC politicians. Surely, citizens need to be embedded in specific sociopolitical networks to gain such access. Therefore, when does the state open up, or, equally important, close, to provide such access points? The authors stress the role of citizen agency and the porous state problematizing the dominant views of state as a benevolent provider through patronage and clientelistic networks. However, the state often transcends the prevailing interests on the ground to work for citizen well-being. This is evident in the implementation of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme in undivided Andhra Pradesh, where an insular bureaucracy, historical administrative legacies, inherent ideas, and resultant rationalities within the state played an instrumental role in promoting citizen well-being.Footnote ⁶

Singh's solidarity argument, though convincing, leaves some questions unanswered as well. How does one explain the unevenness of state capacity within a single subnational case? Take, for example, the case of Bihar (a poor eastern state in India), where since 2005 astounding policy reforms have taken place in selected sectors (such as roads and bridges), but not comprehensively across all sectors. Furthermore, some districts have better development outcomes than others. If a strong regional solidarity were the driver, we would expect its impact comprehensively across sectors and states. I have shown elsewhere that ideas, learning, and policy powering (i.e., state's ability to transcend the nested norms and networks, which might work against a program) play consequential roles.Footnote ⁷ Further, Jensenius's study of constituency quotas for the SCs suggests that a precondition for change in formal norms is necessary for social norms to change, albeit slowly. This underscores the significance of unpacking and a deeper understanding of an ecosystem of ideas within the state that produces political will and the moral purpose of the state. Plausibly, the state as a conceptual/explanatory variable always had what J. P. Nettl describes as a “skeletal” and “ghostly” presence.Footnote ⁸

The answers to the questions dwelled upon in these books are as complex as the politics and policy landscape of India. These works carry lessons for other developing and poor regions of the world. Their richness of data, meticulous fieldwork, and robustness of methods are likewise instructive for social science research.