CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 47Electoral Systems and Political ParticipationPolitical Conflict and GovernancePolitical Theory and Democracy

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 52 of the 57 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 2 are not checked yet.

Technological Change and Political Turnover: The Democratizing Effects of the Green Revolution in India

DASGUPTA, ADITYA·2018·American Political Science Review
DOI 10.1017/s000305541800031x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Can technological change contribute to political turnover? Influential theories suggest that technological change represents a form of creative destruction that can weaken incumbents and strengthen outsiders, leading to political turnover. This paper investigates a large-scale historical natural experiment: the impact of the green revolution on single-party dominance in India. Drawing on a theoretical framework based on models of contests, this paper argues that high-yielding variety (HYV) crops strengthened the incentives and capacity of a politically excluded group, in this case agricultural producers, to seek greater political representation. Exploiting the timing of the introduction of HYV crops, together with district-level variation in suitability for the new crop technology, instrumental variables analyses show that the green revolution played a pivotal role in the rise of agrarian opposition parties and decline of single-party dominance. The findings support theories linking technological change to political turnover, with important implications for the political economy of democratization.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s000305541800031x

Cites

52 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 57 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Vaugier-Chatterjee, 2009, Rise of the Plebeians? The Changing Face of Indian Legislative Assemblies, 277
  2. Lipton, 1977, Why Poor People Stay Poor: A Study of Urban Bias in Development
  3. Rudolph, 1987, In Pursuit of Lakshmi: The Political Economy of the Indian State

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
DASGUPTA, A.
Affiliations
University of California, Merced (US)
Corresponding author
DASGUPTA, ADITYA
ORCID
DASGUPTA, ADITYA
Venue
American Political Science Review
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2018-06-11
Volume
112
Issue
4
Pages
918-938
ISSN
  • 0003-0554 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-5943
DOI
10.1017/s000305541800031x
OpenAlex
W3122358308
Cited by
46
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4
FWCI
18.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified)
Locations
American Political Science Review (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Political Conflict and Governance
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Theory and Democracy
Keywords
technological change, political turnover, Green Revolution, one-party dominance, political representation of farmers, creative destruction, democratization, political economy of democratization

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review