Book Review: Prerna Singh,How Solidarity Works for Welfare: Subnationalism and Social Development in India

Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (the earth is a family), a verse from the Maha Upnishad from the vedic period (c. 1500–500 bc) is engraved in the entrance hall of the Indian Parliament. ‘One is a relative, the other stranger, say the small minded. The entire world is a family, live the magnanimous’ (Maha Upanishad, Chapter 6). At the heart of the rational modern state, is the idea that human beings belong to a single community. The political arrangement of cosmopolitanism is that we enter relationships of mutual respect, despite differing beliefs of identity, religion and political affiliations. Hence, Prerna Singh’s idea that social development is intrinsically linked to the development of a subnational identity is a rather bold one.

This came to mind on the basis of the title that emphasizes subnationalism. But I have to admit that Singh makes quite a strong case on ‘how the shared solidarity that emerges from collective identification can generate a politics of the common good’ (p. 5). She wishes to point out that this understanding is a departure ‘from the dominant view of the negative implication of identity for welfare’ (p. 5), as the book demonstrates ‘how differences in the strength of affective attachment and cohesiveness of community can be a key driver in social policy and welfare’ (p. 5). This is not just a departure from an understanding based on class, as she points out, but also of understanding social fissures at the subnational level on the basis of agrarian relations, gender, caste and religion, problematizing slits within the idea of ‘we-ness’ or looking at ‘regions’ within subnational levels. It also goes against the emerging literature on the disparities of economic development and social welfare in the ‘north’ and the ‘south’, issues of state capacity, the literature on institutions and governance, or arguments that suggest decentralization, democratization and greater accountability leads to better welfare outcomes. She argues that subnational governments that have a ‘stronger collective identification’ are ‘more likely to institute a progressive social policy and have higher welfare outcomes’. In other words, ‘relatively fragmented subnational identity’ is primarily responsible for poorer welfare outcomes (p. 5).

Singh bases her argument on a very careful understanding of the literature on subnationalism and how at particular historical junctures elites work towards the formation of a cohesive subnational identity and promote welfare. It is not just a top-down but also a bottom-up approach. She takes on existing approaches that economic growth is responsible for the welfare state; that ideological basis of the ruling parties in the states contribute towards welfare; or that the nature of the colonial system, the party system, political competition and ethnic diversity contribute to unequal welfare and social development. She is careful on the role of civil society and social capital and mentions that these should be read as ‘complementary to the argument presented in the book’ (p. 55). Singh uses a mixed method approach of both qualitative and quantitative methods to offset each other’s weakness and asserts that her argument is validated statistically from across a study of five states—Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. The first two having a stronger collective identification compared to the second two, and the state of Bihar in recent years developing a sense of identity to provide greater allocation to social development and welfare outcomes. The depth of detail ranging from theoretical insights, historical analysis and understanding policy changes over a long period of time, provides the reader with a comparative analysis and analytical rigor of a very high order. It is due to the method, approach and the rich debate through an original insight that the book invites attention.

Scholars have tried to address the issue of diverse social welfare delivery across federal states in different ways. Economists have tried to identify the problem in state versus market terms, as Elinor Ostrom does by critiquing both the Hobbesian state and the market, and looking for solutions in the community. Jean Drèze and Amartya Sen argue that collective action and democratic institutions lead to better outcomes, while Robert Chambers puts the individual above the state by putting a premium on participation. The literature on decentralization and accountability point to the important role being played by social capital and civil society in making the state more responsive and deliver better outcomes. Econometricians may also question Singh’s data and ask whether the regressions point to a direct causality or a multi-causality where identity is one of the important determinants for better social welfare. The urban literature will also have much discussion on the relevance of this argument when cities are a hub of internal migration.

Ultimately, the book boils down to the argument that solidarity leads to greater welfare. There is much to this argument, even for those who see nationalism as a Janus-faced phenomenon. The kind of limited subnationalism that Singh advocates through her two policy prescriptions does not raise eyebrows—‘First, the jurisdiction over social policy should be vested with the political-administrative unit with which citizens most strongly identify. Second, policies should be initiated to increase the extent of popular identification with the administrative unit which has primary authority with social policy’ (p. 260).

While the book provides a lot of answers, it also raises issues. Scholars familiar with both Tamil Nadu and Kerala will ask why seemingly similar sense of ‘we-ness’ generates such diverse local institutions for the delivery of social welfare. The form of local governments in the two states is so divergent, as well as the mechanisms of accountability to the citizens. The political values related to participation in government are varied. Indeed, if we move away from education and health to, say, service delivery for rural water supply, the approach is so different. Tamil Nadu has opted for a deconcentrated system where the state bureaucracy and engineers control rents while Kerala has opted for a devolved system of delivery at the gram panchayat level. They will also ask as to why contemporary social mobilization in Kerala has helped it achieve open defecation free status before Tamil Nadu. And why do similar levels of solidarity lead to very different arrangements in other areas of economic development. The book will generate a lot of interest and debate over the next few years, as there are no easy solutions to these pressing problems of social welfare. For now, we need to acknowledge that an exciting scholar has emerged in the field of comparative politics and social welfare. The book will engage and inspire a number of young scholars and that is enough reason to celebrate.