Structural Constraints on Public Goods Provision: Evidence from Pakistan by Dr. Adeel Malik and Mr. Rinchan Ali Mirza, Oxford University, UK

  • 223 views
Uploaded on

Presented on February 9th, 2013 at the Second Research Competitive Grants Conference in Islamabad, Pakistan.

Presented on February 9th, 2013 at the Second Research Competitive Grants Conference in Islamabad, Pakistan.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
223
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Structural Constraints on Public Goods Provision Interim Report Adeel Malik Globe Fellow in the Economies of Muslim Societies Oxford University Rinchan Ali Mirza Doctoral Candidate in Economic History, Oxford University
  • 2. Ongoing work streams Index of religious diversity Mapping of current Tehsils on colonial boundaries Collection of historical/archival data Measures of political concentration Snippets of work in progress Data Puzzles Correlation Research Direction
  • 3. Measuring religious diversity Herfindhal Index of religious fragmentation as shown below: = 1 - Σj Sj^2where Sj is the share of an ethnic group (j) in the total population of a Tehsil (i) at time (t) Religious polarization as shown below: = 1 - Σj ( (½ - Sj) / (½) )^2 X Sj where Sj is the share of an ethnic group (j) in the total population of a Tehsil (i) at time (t) The polarization measure, different from the fragmentation measure, says that the largest level of ethnic tension in a Tehsil will be felt when there are two ethnic groups with an almost equal share of the population
  • 4. Mapping Tehsils Tehsil boundaries changed overtime due to several rounds of administrative restructuring Main Contribution: first ever empirical exercise to map current development outcomes at the colonial tehsil level 120 current tehsils were collapsed to 69 historical tehsils Step 1: Chose base year of 1931 census upon whose tehsils statistics on current development outcomes are computed Step 2: Identify administrative restructurings in each tehsil from 1931 to the most recent year (i.e. 2008)  Type 1: A tehsil in 1931 or any later census year was split into two or more smaller tehsils during the period up until the recent data year  Type 2: Portions of two or more tehsils in 1931 or any later census year combined to form a new tehsil during period up until the recent data year
  • 5. Mapping Tehsils: Type 1 Identified every instance of restructuring where a district was split into two or more tehsils between 1931 and the recent year As number of tehsils increased they were collapsed to their previous census round Example:  Tehsil Z split into tehsils X and Y between two rounds: later and earlier  Used the following formula to make tehsils comparable between the two rounds [(data for tehsil X) + (data for tehsil Y)] in later round = [data for tehsil Z] in earlier round  Starting from 1931: repeat the above exercise for every census round till the most recent year  Outcome: current tehsil variables at colonial tehsil boundaries
  • 6. Mapping Tehsils: Type 2 Identified instances when portions of two or more tehsils in 1931 or any later census year were combined to form a new tehsil in period leading up to the recent year Example:  Tehsil X formed by carving out portions of N pre-existing tehsils between two rounds: later and earlier  Used the following formula to make tehsils comparable between the two rounds [(area given to X from pre-existing tehsil 1/total area of X)*(data for X) + (data for pre-existing tehsil 1)] in later round = [data for tehsil 1] in earlier round [(area given to X from pre-existing tehsil N/total area of X)*(data for X) + (data for pre-existing tehsil N)] in later round = [data for tehsil N] in earlier round  Starting from 1931: repeat the above exercise for every census round till the most recent year  Outcome: current tehsil variables at colonial tehsil boundaries
  • 7. Mapping Tehsils: Limitations Assumption: Development indicators uniformly distributed across the area of the Tehsil Implication: Allows us to break up development indicators in the new Tehsil into portions which are then added back to the parent Tehsil in the previous round Development performance proportional to areas Example:  A new tehsil Kotli Sattian was carved out from areas of Murree and Rawalpindi  20 % of Murree tehsil from earlier round given to the new Kotli Sattian tehsil in later round. Furthermore, 30% of Rawalpindi tehsil from earlier round given to the new Kotli Sattian tehsil in later round.  (20/50=40%) of development indicator of Kotli Sattian tehsil was then added back to Murree tehsil to make Murree tehsil comparable across the two rounds.  (30/50=60%) of development indicator of Kotli Sattian tehsil added back to Rawalpindi tehsil to make Rawalpindi tehsil comparable across the two rounds
  • 8. Narowal Sheikhupura Lyallpur.6 Jaranwala Lahore Kasur Shakargrah Gujranwala Chunian Sialkot Pakpattan Bahawalnagar Daska Pasrur Minchinabad Toba Tek Singh.5 Shahdara Montgomery Okara Sargodha Samundri Khanewal Nankana Sahib Rawalpindi Wazirabad.4 Dipalpur Rajanpur Multan Mailsi Phalia Jhang Shorkot Hafizabad Khairpur.3 Bhakkar Lodhran Bahawalpur Alipur Ahmadpur Sharqi Kabirwala Shujabad Shahpur Dera Ghazi Khan Leiah Ahmadpur Lamma Gujrat Bhalwal Muzaffargarh Rahim Yar Khan Chakwal Chiniot Taunsa Mianwali Kahuta Addu Kot Khanpur Kharian.2 Jampur Gujar Khan Jhelum Khushab Pindigheb Pind Dadan Khan Fateh-jang Isa Tallagang Allahabad Khel Attock.1 Murree .05 .1 .15 .2 .25 Proportion depressed caste (district) Herfindahl Index of Religious Diversity Fitted values
  • 9. Kharian .2 Phalia e( prop_remit | X ) Gujrat .1 Jhelum Wazirabad Sialkot Kahuta Gujar Khan Dera Ghazi Khan Chakwal Khanpur Rahim Yar Khan Daska Jampur Ahmadpur Lamma Toba Tek Singh Allahabad Bahawalpur Rajanpur Shahdara Leiah 0 Alipur Tallagang Lodhran Khushab Mailsi Bhalwal Isa Khel Khairpur Shorkot Kot Taunsa Pind Dadan Khan AhmadpurAddu Pindigheb Sharqi Muzaffargarh Khanewal Bhakkar Gujranwala Murree Fateh-jang Attock Shujabad Mianwali Kabirwala SamundriSargodha Bahawalnagar Montgomery Rawalpindi Chiniot Hafizabad Shahpur Multan Pasrur Pakpattan Jaranwala Lyallpur Okara Minchinabad Shakargrah Jhang Dipalpur Nankana Sahib Chunian Sheikhupura Narowal Kasur Lahore -.1 -.3 -.2 -.1 0 .1 .2 e( index | X ) coef = -.2266273, (robust) se = .06128053, t = -3.7X=density, latitude and longitudeIs religious diversity only acting as a proxy for selection into occupationalgroups?
  • 10. Caste Group Muzaffargarh Montgomery Bahawalpur Gujranwala Rawalpindi D.G. Khan Mianwali Shahpur Lyallpur Multan Jhelum Lahore Sialkot Attock Gujrat Jhang StateAgricultural 47 48 56 35 50 59 60 68 59 62 69 70 54 67 61 48Religious 2 3 3 2 2 1 2 3 3 4 2 3 2 2 1 2Mercantile 2 8 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1Artisan 24 17 22 3 17 11 10 14 16 15 9 15 13 5 11 9Menial & Outcast 25 18 18 9 25 26 20 13 21 18 13 8 26 14 22 14Other 0 5 0 51 5 1 6 0 0 0 5 0 3 11 4 26Total Muslim 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Caste Group Muzaffargarh Montgomery Bahawalpur Gujranwala Rawalpindi D.G. Khan Mianwali Shahpur Lyallpur Multan Jhelum Lahore Sialkot Attock Gujrat Jhang StateAgricultural 9 11 25 1 1 24 6 3 10 4 1 6 6 16 9 2Religious 18 16 17 3 7 0 5 10 14 16 6 36 8 3 11 4Mercantile 57 42 18 81 88 50 80 81 58 62 89 46 72 50 59 79Artisan 5 3 11 9 2 4 1 4 7 10 3 2 5 5 4 3Menial & Outcast 6 26 28 0 1 17 2 2 8 3 0 10 6 23 15 1Other 5 2 1 6 0 4 7 0 2 4 1 0 2 3 1 11Total Hindu 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
  • 11. Plots and Puzzles I: Rainfall and development in Punjab1.8 JHE RAW MUR GJK PAS SIA KHT CHK LHR WAZ GUJ GUR KRN DAS LYP PDK SKG TAL ATK FTJ NAR.6 TTS SAR PHA SHK PIG BWL MUL MIA OKASDH KHU BWPKHA SHP JRWHAF KAB MON SAM KOT JHA LYA RYK SHO BHN BHA MAI KHP KNP TAU ISKCHI KSR PAKNKSCHU LOD.4 AHLMUZ DIP DGK ALBALI SHU JAMMIN RJPAHM.2 0 20 40 60 Average rainfall in tehsil in 1923 Literacy Rate for over 15s Fitted values
  • 12. Plots and Puzzles II:Public goods provision falls with distance from Lahore! Rajanpur .2 .15 Kot Addu Jampur .1 Dera Ghazi Khan Kasur Isa Khel Muzaffargarh Ahmadpur Sharqi .05 BahawalpurLeiahTaunsa Khanpur Chunian Shujabad Bhakkar Lodhran Alipur Mianwali Kharian Chiniot Kabirwala Jhelum Kahuta Jhang Rahim Yar Khan Pakpattan Bahawalnagar Khushab Multan Nankana Sahib Shorkot Rawalpindi Khairpur Attock Ahmadpur Lamma Shahdara Lahore SheikhupuraOkaraSamundriToba Minchinabad Sialkot Pasrur Shakargrah Lyallpur Jaranwala Wazirabad Gujrat Murree Pindigheb GujranwalaMontgomery Chakwal Khan Fateh-jang Gujar Narowal Hafizabad Bhalwal TallagangMailsi DaskaDipalpur PindSargodha Tek Singh Phalia Shahpur Dadan Khan Khanewal Allahabad 0 0 200 400 600 Distance of tehsil from Lahore PBGsch5kmore Fitted values
  • 13. Measuring political concentration Political concentration: Extent of the replacement of traditional elites by new families in a district at a particular time Number of new families in power in district (it) / Total number of political appointments in district (it) How do we differentiate new from old? Pre-partition nobility, mentioned in Punjab Chiefs and District Gazetteers, land grants from the British, other titles, awards and influence in the British era, elected in at least two previous elections, etc.
  • 14.       Number of Electoral New  Constituencies Arrivals New_propBahawalpur 35 6 0.171429D. G. Khan 23 2 0.086957Muzaffargarh 41 3 0.073171Khanewal 20 4 0.20Jhang 47 8 0.170213Attock 26 3 0.115385Jhelum 23 7 0.304348Rawalpindi 52 28 0.538462       
  • 15. Gathering data on land tenures
  • 16. Rinchan’s PSSP supported Research Eradication of religious diversity and public goods West Punjab Attock Bahawalpur State Dera Ghazi Khan Gujranwala .4 .4 .4 .4 .2 .2 .2 .2 0 0 0 0Proportion of minorities 1900 1950 2000 1900 1950 2000 1900 1950 2000 1900 1950 2000 Gujrat Jhang Jhelum Lahore .4 .4 .4 .4 .2 .2 .2 .2 0 0 0 0 1900 1950 2000 1900 1950 2000 1900 1950 2000 1900 1950 2000 Lyallpur Mianwali Montgomery Multan .4 .4 .4 .4 .2 .2 .2 .2 0 0 0 0 1900 1950 2000 1900 1950 2000 1900 1950 2000 1900 1950 2000 Muzaffargarh Rawalpindi Shahpur Sialkot .4 .4 .4 .4 .2 .2 .2 .2 0 0 0 0 1900 1950 2000 1900 1950 2000 1900 1950 2000 1900 1950 2000