Page 1 of 15

DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA
NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

SABBAVARAM, VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P., INDIA

PROJECT TITLE - POVERTY AND POLITICS: A CRITICAL STUDY

OF INFLUENCE

SUBJECT -POLITICAL SCIENCE

NAME OF THE FACULTY - DR. T. Y. NIRMALA DEVI

Name of the Candidate – DEV ARORA

Roll No. – 22LLB026
 Page 2 of 15

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I'd want to take this time to thank my Political Science teacher, DR. T. Y. NIRMALA DEVI,
for providing direction and assistance during the project. I couldn't have finished it without her.
Because she was the main force behind the project, it is difficult to say whether or not it would
have been finished without her leadership and contribution. I would want to offer my heartfelt
appreciation to her for all she has done for me. In addition, I'd want to take this time to thank
my parents, friends, and the youngsters a year or two older than me who inspired me to take
on this challenge. I owe them a big debt of gratitude for directing me in the proper direction
and assisting me with my endeavor.

REGARDS,

DEV ARORA
1st SEMESTER.
 Page 3 of 15

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Acknowledgement …………………….……………………2
2. Abstract………………………………………….……….….4
3. Synopsis………………………………………….………….5
3.1.Objectives of the Study……………………….…………5
3.2.Significance of the Study…………………….………….5
4. Poor people experience democracy differently …..…....…...6
5. States shape weak political possibilities. ……….…….….…8
6. Decentralization isn't pro-poor. …….…….…...…..….…….10
7. Many governance initiatives will help the poor.….………...12
8. Conclusion……………………...…....….……..….….….….14
9. Bibliography………………………….….…………….…….15
 Page 4 of 15

ABSTRACT

The voting rates of the poor and those from lower castes are often greater than those of persons
living in industrialised democracies. Similarly, in many rural areas, a higher proportion of
eligible voters actually casts a ballot compared to their urban counterparts. Though not every
democratically elected state government has policies that are beneficial to the poor, the poor
nonetheless have higher expectations of the state than the wealthy do. The impoverished and
marginalised in India put their confidence in the democratic process because they believe the
state will fulfil its legal obligation to give equal opportunity to all citizens regardless of caste,
creed, religion, or economic background. People have faith because they think the government
will make an effort to remove these roadblocks.

However, the state is limited not merely by the political process of administration but also by
economic and social institutions. Unlike governmental institutions, which are dependent on the
government, market-based institutions reflect the existing state of inequality. Since the
democratic system permits universal suffrage regardless of one's socioeconomic status, it does
imply equality. The impoverished will now have a place to have their voices heard. But this
doesn't always imply the state is committed to promoting fairness and equality for all its
citizens. In reality, democracies in developing nations have a worse track record of reducing
poverty than non-democratic countries like China.

To put that in context, the characteristics of Indian politics suggest that lowering poverty levels
is not only an economic imperative for elected officials; it is also a political necessity for them
to do so. To reach this objective, the state must mediate among the many distinct institutions,
ensure fair play via the efficient regulation of markets, and establish transfer and taxation
policies to redistribute resources from the wealthy to the poor.
 Page 5 of 15

SYNOPSIS

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY:

• The purpose of this study is to examine politics, poverty and its influence on each other.
• Also, to give a foreign perspective with examples.
• Additionally, to look upon the local governments on poverty.

SIGNIFICATION OF THE STUDY:

The research will aid us in understanding the past and present, of government politics and its
effect, as well as giving different perspectives.
 Page 6 of 15

POOR PEOPLE EXPERIENCE DEMOCRACY DIFFERENTLY

In general, impoverished people have a higher voter registration and turnout rates than
wealthier people. This may be owing to a lack of resources in certain nations, while in others
it may be attributable to a disagreement on the value of democracy amongst the well-off.

• Poor voters choose fewer primary candidates.: -

In primary elections, those with lower incomes tend to choose fewer candidates (in most
jurisdictions voters may only select one candidate per office). People who are
economically disadvantaged often focus more on their current requirements than they
do on long-term concerns; as a result, they may be more inclined to support political
candidates who promise them what they desire to hear. In addition, people living in
poverty are more likely to vote for a candidate who promises more assistance or
services from the government than they are to vote for a candidate who promises less
interference from the government in their lives. This pattern is particularly prevalent
among African Americans. Last but not least, not only do many individuals who are
poor vote as members of a group (such as their age or race), but they also vote as
members of their community since they have no option but to vote on matters that are
local and impact all members equally.

• Rich and poor have distinct perspectives.: -

People with little money tend to vote differently than those with more. People with less
money have a greater propensity to be more supportive of government programmes that
aid the poor, such as food assistance and health care subsidies for low-income families.
This is because people with less money have a greater understanding of the challenges
that the impoverished face. In point of fact, a recent study conducted by political
scientists Matthew Dallek and Frank Newport found that "the relationship between
income inequality and partisanship" is so strong that it can explain up to half of all
differences in voting patterns between wealthy and poor citizens of the United States.
This indicates that if you want the political system of your town or nation to be more
competitive, and therefore responsive, you should propose altering our tax law so that
everyone pays their fair part (or at least something close).
 Page 7 of 15

• The poor use their rights differently than the rich.: -

In a similar line, those who are economically disadvantaged are more likely to vote for
politicians that have the potential to assist them. This is due to the fact that low-income
voters are less inclined to cast their ballots for a candidate who is not likely to improve
their lot in life. For instance, if your candidate supports aid for the less fortunate and
opposes tax cuts for the wealthy, then it is likely in your best interest to vote for him or
her rather than abstain from doing so. If your politician is neither anti-rich and pro-poor
but merely wants money from everyone who has a lot of it, then he or she will probably
not do anything helpful for those with low incomes. The impoverished are able to
exercise their rights in a manner that is distinct from that of the non-poor.

Those with lower incomes are more likely to vote for fewer candidates in the primary election.
Oftentimes, the views of the wealthy and the impoverished are completely at odds with one
another. The rights of the poor are exercised in a way different from those of the middle and
upper classes.
 Page 8 of 15

STATES SHAPE WEAK POLITICAL POSSIBILITIES

In the 1960s, political scientists started looking at how politics influenced the lives of low-
income individuals for the first time. Since then, a lot of information has come to light on the
impact that people's social networks have on their capacity to take part in political processes.
One of the most important questions that they have investigated is whether or not impoverished
people have access to political chances that are unavailable to voters from the middle class or
even affluent contributors.

• A political opportunity is a confluence of variables that allows for action.

A political opportunity is a confluence of circumstances that creates the potential for

one course of action to be more successful than another. When there is a larger gap
between rich and poor in terms of wealth, there are more chances for the less fortunate
to participate in political life. The reason for this is that those who are less fortunate are
more likely to be influenced by changes in policy than those who have more resources
(because they have less income). In other words, if the government does anything that
helps affluent people at the cost of poor people—such as decreasing taxes on wealthy
individuals or corporations—then these policies will benefit those who are already well-
off even more than they did before the government took these actions.

• When social service quality diminishes, impoverished people get less aid and have less
motive to support the government.

The provision of social services is the responsibility of the democratically elected

government. These services are used by persons who are not poor in order to improve
their own quality of life, as well as by those who are impoverished in order to improve
their own quality of life. When the quality of social services deteriorates, the amount
of help provided to low-income individuals decreases, as does the number of reasons
for low-income people to support the government.

• Family and friends may restrict impoverished people's political participation.

 Page 9 of 15

It may be difficult for impoverished individuals to participate in political processes

because of the limitations imposed on them by their social networks, which may include
family and friends. The most glaring illustration of this is seen in educational systems.
Poor people often do not have access to books or other resources that would enable
them to learn more about political problems and participate in the democratic process.
This makes it difficult for poor people to understand more about political topics. In
addition to this, low-income families often reside in rural regions, which provide few
employment opportunities outside of the agricultural sector (or perhaps even within
agriculture). Because of this, many low-income people have little choice but to depend
on their family for financial support as they finish their education or search for work.

Finally, it is certain that both governmental and private organisations have utilised a
wide range of strategies to affect the political opportunities available to economically
disadvantaged persons. Some of these methods include making it harder for people to
vote, keeping them from learning about candidates, and limiting their access to relevant
information. Collectively, these efforts have diminished low-income people's ability to
have a voice in shaping public policy that affects their lives.
 Page 10 of 15

DECENTRALIZATION ISN'T PRO-POOR

If they are given a voice in the operation of the government, the reasoning goes, disadvantaged
people will be in a better position to look out for their own best interests. In addition, it is
anticipated that Local Self-Governing Groups (LSGs) would be more sensitive to the needs of
disadvantaged people since decision-making will be carried out in greater proximity to these
individuals.

• The premise is that the poor can safeguard their interests if they have a vote in
government.: -

If they are given a voice in the operation of the government, the reasoning goes,
disadvantaged people will be in a better position to look out for their own best interests.
It is possible for the poor to have a greater say in decision making, which would result
in improved representation and accountability. This is due to the fact that local
authorities will be more responsive to the people's requirements as compared to central
authority.

• LSGs should be more responsive to impoverished people since decision-making is

closer.: -

Because choices would be made closer to the people who would be affected by them,
and because those individuals would have a greater opportunity to influence the
process, it is presumed that decentralised governance would be more responsive to the
demands of low-income people. On the other hand, there is no evidence to support this
assertion. In point of fact, there is a mountain of data indicating that rural populations
in Thailand and Kenya do not benefit from increased access as a result of decentralised
decision making. For instance, in agricultural programmes in both countries, farmers
with higher levels of education were less likely to receive support from LSGs than those
with lower levels of education (who were also younger). This finding is consistent with
previous research on other types of development programmes in which beneficiaries
are largely dependent upon local resources (e.g., health care).
 Page 11 of 15

• Money or muscular power might sway local officials to neglect the poor's needs and
wishes.: -

This is not to suggest that decentralisation is inherently harmful to those who are
economically disadvantaged. The reality of the matter is that in most instances, local
leaders are better equipped to comprehend the needs and desires of their communities
than a government located farther away, and as a result, they have greater motivation
to fulfil those needs and aspirations. On the other hand, there are also other elements at
play here: wealthier individuals in villages and towns have disproportionate influence
over local authorities because they are able to give them money or exert physical force
over them (i.e., threats). If a small number of wealthy individuals’ control all of your
political power base and resources, then the people in your leadership structure will do
precisely what those wealthy people want, which may involve disregarding the needs
and desires of the rest of the population entirely.
 Page 12 of 15

MANY GOVERNANCE INITIATIVES WILL HELP THE POOR

The disadvantaged population is almost often excluded from governance-related activities.

However, there are a number of important programmes that may assist those who are
economically disadvantaged benefit from them.

• Private companies need good governance to be competitive in manufacturing.: -

In order to maintain a competitive advantage in their manufacturing endeavours, private

businesses need to have effective governance structures in place. Governance is an
essential component of economic progress, and it is possible to accomplish it via
partnerships between the public and private sectors (PPPs). These public-private
partnerships have been carried out effectively in a number of nations spanning Africa,
Asia, and Latin America. Take, for instance:

▪ The government of Uganda has formed partnerships with several commercial

corporations in order to construct a number of dams on its rivers, including the Nile
River.
▪ PPPs were used to develop roads leading from urban areas into rural areas in
Mozambique and Ethiopia. They also supported farmers through crop insurance
schemes that helped them increase production levels while reducing costs
associated with pests or diseases affecting crops grown on small farms owned by
poor households. PPPs were also used to develop roads leading from urban areas
into rural areas in Tanzania.

• Effective governance needs public and private sectors to collaborate to accomplish

common objectives more effectively.: -

The public and private sectors need to work together to accomplish common objectives
more effectively than each could do on its own. This is one of the requirements for
effective governance. For instance, in order for a government to supply safe drinking
water or to build a new national park, it could be necessary for the government to
collaborate with private firms.
 Page 13 of 15

Governance requires making judgments on how to effectively distribute resources

among competing interests and constituencies, and it also requires working together
toward agreed objectives in order to achieve governance success. This can, in some
instances, involve competition between different entities on a level playing field;
however, in most cases, it means that people from different groups need to agree on
what their priorities are before they can move forward as one unified whole, and this
can sometimes require them to make concessions. In some cases, this can involve
competition between different entities on a level playing field (or perhaps even
sacrifice). This indicates that good governance should also be transparent in the
following ways: there should be clear lines of authority so that everyone knows who is
responsible for what part of the process; all participants should understand exactly what
needs to be done when so that there are no surprises further down the road; and
communication between parties involved must be open at all times so that no one feels
left out or ignored during discussions about important issues like these!
 Page 14 of 15

CONCLUSION

Poorer individuals register and vote more than wealthy ones. This may be due to a lack of
resources in certain countries or a disagreement on the importance of democracy among the
wealthy in others. Political scientists studied how politics affected low-income people for the
first time. Since then, much more is known about how social networks affect people's ability
to participate in politics. One of the most crucial issues they've asked is whether poor people
have political opportunities accessible to middle-class or wealthy voters. If disadvantaged
people have a say in governance, they can better protect their own interests, the thinking goes.
Local Self-Governing Groups (LSGs) will be more attentive to disadvantaged people's needs
since decisions will be made closer to them. The underprivileged are seldom included in
government activities. There are essential programmes that may help the economically poor.
 Page 15 of 15

BIBLIOGRAPHY

• https://ecfr.eu/special/what_does_india_think/analysis/indias_politics_and_the_poor
• https://borgenproject.org/how-politics-affect-poverty/
• https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228974763_Politics_and_Poverty_a_backgr
ound_paper_for_the_World_Development_Report_20001
• Besir Ceka and Pedro C. Magalh˜aes, Do the Rich and the Poor Have Different
Conceptions of Democracy? Socioeconomic Status, Inequality, and the Political Status
Quo, Vol. 52, Comparative Politics, pp. 383-403, April 2020.
• Mick moore and James Putzel, Politics and Poverty: a background paper for the world
development report, 2017.