casi lok survey march 28 presentation

IntroductionElectoral Horse-Race

Five Myths of the Indian VoterConclusion

India Decides 2014Results from the Lok Pre-Election Survey

Devesh Kapur, Neelanjan Sircar & Milan Vaishnav

March 28, 2014

Devesh Kapur, Neelanjan Sircar & Milan Vaishnav India Decides 2014



Lok SurveysRoadmapContext

Lok Surveys

Goal: To understand the social and political reconfigurationstaking place across India today

●

●

●

●

Delhi

Kolkata

Chennai

Mumbai

Multi-year panel of 65,000+ households in 24 states and UTs

Oct-Dec 2013 – Pre-Election SurveyJan-Mar 2014 – Aspirations and Anxieties SurveyJun-Jul 2014 – Post-Election Survey





Roadmap

The Electoral Horse-Race

Five Myths of the Indian Voter?

1 Regionalism is Surging2 Good Economics 6= Good Politics3 Voters are fed up with dynasties4 Lack of information breeds criminality5 Vote your caste, not cast your vote





Context

Three principles:

India is a stable democracy

Electoral outcomes in India are volatile

Politics means leaders and parties, not voters




Bottom LineStatewise ChangesDemographic ImpactsCaveats

Bottom Line

010

2030

40

Vot

e S

hare

NDA

31

UPA

23





Bottom Line

CSDS (7/2013)

Lok (4Q/2013)

CSDS (1/2014)

HT-‐ Cvoter (1/2014)

Times-‐Cvoter (1/2014)

ABP-‐ Nielsen (2/2014)

NDTV-‐Hansa

(3/2014)

UPA 29% 23% 28% 23% 22% 23% 27%

NDA 29% 31% 36% 34% 36% 31% 30%





Big NDA Gains

8% 12%

11% 15%

7% 11%

6% 9%

0% -‐7%

13% 5%

9% 23%

0%

WB UP TN RAJ PUN ORI MP MAH KER KAR HAR GUJ CTG BIH AP





Big UPA Losses

4% -‐9%

-‐3% -‐10%

-‐8% 0%

-‐9% -‐7%

-‐4% 1%

-‐22% -‐6%

-‐13% 9%

-‐22%

WB UP TN RAJ PUN ORI MP

MAH KER KAR HAR GUJ CTG BIH AP





Rural-Urban Breakdown

24% 22% 23% 24%

28%

33%

27%

32%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Rural illiterate Rural literate Urban illiterate Urban literate

UPA NDA





Social Group Breakdown

19% 21% 21%

31%

35%

42%

35%

25% 23%

12%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Upper Caste OBC SC ST Muslims

UPA NDA





Caveats

Campaign Effects

Candidates

Alliances

Strategic Voting




Regionalism is RisingGood Economics 6= Good PoliticsFed up with DynastiesLack of Information Breeds Criminal PoliticiansVote your Caste, not Cast your Vote

Regionalism is Rising?





Current Predictions

CSDS (7/2013)

Lok (4Q/2013)

CSDS (1/2014)

HT-‐ Cvoter (1/2014)

Times-‐Cvoter (1/2014)

ABP-‐ Nielsen (2/2014)

NDTV-‐ Hansa

(3/2014)

UPA 29% 23% 28% 23% 22% 23% 27%

NDA 29% 31% 36% 34% 36% 31% 30%

UPA + NDA 58% 54% 64% 57% 58% 54% 57%





Reversal of Fortune

31.5%

23.0% 21.5%

31.0%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

2009 (actual) 2014 (projected)

UPA NDA

Vote

sha

re





Good Economics 6= Good Politics

25%

21% 18%

14%

8% 7% 5%

3%

Economic Growth

Corruption In9lation Personal Income

Law and Order

Access to Govt

Bene9its

Leadership Identity





Growth: Large State-to-State Variation

43% 43% 41%

38%

32% 31% 28%

22% 21% 20% 19%

17% 13%

7%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

CTG PUN GUJ WB RAJ TN KER KAR AP MP HAR MAH UP BIH Sha

re o

f res

pond

ents

influ

ence

d by

gr

owth





Top Issues by State

Kerala 43% Chha,sgarh 43% Maharashtra 29%

Bihar 40% Punjab 43% Haryana 25%

U?ar Pradesh 33% Gujarat 41%

Andhra Pradesh 26% West Bengal 38% Madhya Pradesh 25% Rajasthan 32%

Tamil Nadu 31%

Karnataka 22%

Corruption Economic growth Inflation/price rise





Are Muslim Voters Different?

9%

14%

21%

3%

21%

7% 4%

22%

7%

14%

21%

3%

18%

8% 5%

25%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Access to Govt

Personal Income

Corruption

Identity

InAlation

Law and Order

Leadership

Economic Growth

Muslims All-‐India





Bharat vs India?

9%

16%

19%

2%

19%

8%

4%

23%

5%

12%

23%

4%

17%

6% 6%

27%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Access to Govt

Personal Income

Corruption

Identity

InBlation

Law and Order

Leadership

Economic Growth

rural urban





Dynasticism among MPs

20%

80%

2004

Dynastic ties

No dynastic ties

29%

71%

2009

Dynastic ties

No dynastic ties

Source: Simon Chauchard, Kanchan Chandra, and Anjali ThomasBohlken (2009)





Dynastic Preference Among Voters

54%

46%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

No Yes

% prefer to vote fo

r dynas/c candidate





Why Voters Prefer Dynasties

Reason Percent

Better at doing politics because it is their occupation 45% Likely to succeed because of greater exposure to politics 40%

Makes it easier to deliver services 15%





Criminal MPs% of Lok Sabha M

embe

rs of P

arliamen

t

15% 19%

24%

30%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

2004 2009

Serious charge Minor charge

Source: Vaishnav (2014)Devesh Kapur, Neelanjan Sircar & Milan Vaishnav India Decides 2014




Sensitive Question: List Experiment

How many of the following trouble you?

Control Group Experimental Group

1.  Wealthy Candidate 2.  Poor Candidate 3.  Independent Candidate






Sensitive Question: List Experiment


1.  Wealthy Candidate 2.  Poor Candidate 3.  Independent Candidate 4.  Candidate with serious

criminal charges who delivers bene?its to you







Support for Criminal Candidates

48%

26%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

List Experiment Direct Question

% willing to vote for candidate with

serio

us charges





Effect on Support for Criminals

AP

BIH

CTG

GUJ

HAR

KAR

KER

MAH

MP

ORI

PUN

RAJ TN UP

WB

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16%

Support for candidates

with serious charges

2009 Candidates with serious criminal charges





Identity Ranks Last

25%

21% 18%

14%

8% 7% 5%

3%

Economic Growth

Corruption In9lation Personal Income

Law and Order

Access to Govt

Bene9its

Leadership Identity





Caste Preference and Bias

46%

36%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Co-‐ethnic af5inity Ethnic bias

% of respo

nden

ts dem

onstra.n

g “bias”





Caste Bias: List Experiment


•  A corrupt candidate wins •  An uneducated candidate wins

•  An educated candidate wins

•  A [Upper Caste/OBC/SC] candidate wins

•  A corrupt candidate wins •  An uneducated candidate wins

•  An educated candidate wins






Caste Bias Results

36%

57%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Ethnic bias (direct) Ethnic bias (list)

% of respo

nden

ts dem

onstra.n

g “bias”





Identity Predicts Votes, not Electoral Outcomes

26%

42%

25%

35%

17%

25% 23% 23%

9% 12%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45% 2009

2014

2009

2014

2009

2014

2009

2014

2009

2014

Upper Caste OBC SC ST Muslim

% of respo

nden

ts vo-

ng fo

r NDA




Conclusion

Indian society is changing, and with it, preferences of voters

Classic rural-urban divide is getting blurred

Social bias continues be endemic in India




Conclusion

Social biases move slowly, but electoral outcomes predicted bycontingent issues

This election is a vote for change with far-reachingconsequences

...But we will not really know until mid-May




Thank you

Web:

indiaintransition.comcasi.sas.upenn.educarnegieendowment.org

Twitter:

@CASIPenn@MilanV@NeelanjanSircar


casi lok survey march 28 presentation

Data & Analytics