Are high-profile constituencies better off?
An analysis of 12 such constituencies shows most of them perform poorly on a wide range of indicators
--621x414.jpg)
Mumbai: Campaigning against Narendra Modi in Varanasi, Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Arvind Kejriwal said last week that it was unlikely the prime ministerial nominee of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) will develop Varanasi.
“Which PM has improved his constituency?” Kejriwal asked. “Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru used to contest from Phulpur; it has not improved. Then he contested from Allahabad. Is everything alright there? Indira Gandhi contested from Raebareli. What is the condition there?”
Whether Kejriwal’s rhetoric sways the voters of Varanasi or not remains to be seen, the question he raised is pertinent.
Are constituencies that elect high-profile members of parliament (MPs) better off than others? A Mint analysis of 12 such constituencies using Census and Election Commission (EC) data shows that most of these constituencies perform poorly on a wide range of socioeconomic indicators. In most of the 15 socio-indicators examined, these constituencies performed worse than the state they are located in, and worse than the national average.
The 12 high-profile constituencies are spread across the country, and included both rural and urban constituencies—Amethi (Rahul Gandhi), Amritsar (Navjot Singh Sidhu), Bangalore South (Ananth Kumar), Bankura (Basudeb Acharia), Bhagalpur (Shahnawaz Hussain), Chandni Chowk (Kapil Sibal), Chhindwara (Kamal Nath), Gandhinagar (L.K. Advani), Hyderabad (Asaduddin Owaisi),Raebareli (Sonia Gandhi), Sivaganga (P. Chidambaram) and South Mumbai (Milind Deora). Only constituencies of MPs who represented the same constituency in the past decade were included in the analysis.
Seven of the dozen constituencies fared worse in most of the 15 parameters than the state they are located in. In case of one (Bhagalpur), the result is mixed: it was worse than the state in seven of the 15 parameters. The remaining four—Bangalore South, Gandhinagar, Hyderabad and South Mumbai—were better-off compared with the respective states of which they are the capital cities.
The 15 parameters on which constituencies and states have been compared include variables on access to amenities (such as electricity, tap water, etc.), assets (TV sets, mobile phones, two-wheelers) as well as other indicators such as the sex ratio and the proportion of regular workers (see chart on back page).
Given that census districts do not exactly match electoral constituencies, the analysis is based on the aggregation of sub-districts that constitute a particular constituency, even if they belong to different districts.
For instance, the Amethi constituency is composed of two sub-districts of Raebareli district (Salon and Tiloi) and three sub-districts of Sultanpur district (Amethi, Gauriganj and Musafirkhana). In case of two constituencies, Bangalore South and Chandni Chowk, the analysis is restricted only to a subset of the entire constituency since sub-districts that are only partially included in these constituencies were ignored. In case of South Mumbai, the data set partly includes data on some parts of the adjacent constituency of South Central Mumbai.
While the proportion of households having access to a computer with Internet is still low in India (3.1%), in some key constituencies such as Chandni Chowk (14%), Hyderabad (16.9%), and South Mumbai (19%), people with an Internet connection form a significant proportion of voters. It is perhaps in these constituencies that the impact of social media will be felt the most.
On one key parameter—the proportion of asset-poor households—most of the high-profile constituencies perform better than the state they are located in. Census enumerators ask questions about ownership of 12 key assets (see chart), and classify those who have none of these specified assets separately.
Given that the census does not provide data on income, this variable may be considered the closest proxy for poverty levels. Nationally, the proportion of such asset-poor households is 18%, roughly similar to the official consumption-based poverty estimate of 22%. Most high-profile constituencies have fewer asset-poor households than the state and national averages.
Most high-profile constituencies, however, fare poorly on another key parameter, which has become a talking point during this election campaign—regular jobs. The proportion of regular workers has shrunk and that of temporary workers has increased in most of the 12 high-profile constituencies over the past decade.
The share of regular workers is lower than the respective state average in most of the dozen constituencies analysed. Regular workers (or main workers, as the census defines them) are those who worked in a job for more than six months in a year.
High-profile constituencies fare poorly even when it comes to access to basic amenities. The proportion of households with access to tap water is lower than the respective state average in nine of the 12 constituencies analysed. The exceptions are Gandhinagar, Hyderabad and South Mumbai.
To be sure, the fortunes of a constituency are perhaps determined more by the respective state governments rather than an individual MP. Nonetheless, it is striking that many constituencies that have been the pocketboroughs of MPs or of a certain political family for a long time are worse-off than the state they are located in.
Krithi Sundar contributed to this story.
Catch all the Business News, Market News, Breaking News Events and Latest News Updates on Live Mint. Download The Mint News App to get Daily Market Updates.
Business NewsSpecialsAre high-profile constituencies better off?
First Published:21 Apr 2014, 01:15 PM IST
- Top Gainers
- Top Losers
- 52 Week High