Political families of Uttar Pradesh

Linkage Analysis

Document History

Original Publish Date: 23 June, 2020

Updated on: 07 September, 2020

In politics few of the players become successful in building a dynasty. Among those successful ones some of them expands their territory to multiple levels. In this post, we look at those families to see what enabled them for their expansion. This analysis exclusively among families.

We use TRUE/FALSE to represent a families linkage.

ADR

In the first part, we are using ADR data which is available for the years 2012 and 2017 for AE and 2009,2014 and 2019 for GE.

Summary

This table shows us the number of families with linkage.

Table 1: Summary table of individuals from families with and without linkages AE: 2012-2017, GE: 2009-2019
Linkage Count
FALSE 179
TRUE 274

Assets

Table 2: Average assets among families with and without linkages
Linkage Total assets Movable Assets Immovable Assets
FALSE 37408611 8625479 25184182
TRUE 49008457 11663793 31261156

Crime

This table shows us the proportion of families in each category with one or more serious crimes.

Table 3: Serious criminal cases among families with and without linkages
Linkage Proportion
FALSE 0.18
TRUE 0.28

Industry

In this section we calculate number of industries they own. According to our survey design Maximum number of industries that a family can have is 3 .

Table 4: Industry ownership among families with and without linkages
Politician’s identity Average number of ownersip
FALSE 1.5
TRUE 1.8

This table shows the break-up of the rent type among those industry owners

Politician’s identity rent-type Proportion
FALSE non-rent-thick 0.47
FALSE rent-thick 0.53
TRUE non-rent-thick 0.31
TRUE rent-thick 0.69

Caste

This sections shows the composition of caste with regards linkage.

MPLADS

MPLADS data is available for the year 2004 & 2009. The following table summarises the families with and without linkage.

Table 5: Summary stat of families in 2004 & 2009 GE wrt linkage
Linkage Count
FALSE 14
TRUE 35
Table 6: MPLADS prjects and spending wrt linkage
Type of constiuency Average number of contracts Avergae expenditure per project
FALSE 223 314624
TRUE 481 317570

Project count and expenditure

This section looks at the categorical distribution of type of MPLADS projects and spending among families with regards to their linkage.

The following stacked chart depicts the composition of both number of projects and the expenditure with regards to linkage.

This bar chart depicts the average number of projects in each category withregards to linkage.

This bar chart depicts the average cost incurred for each category of projects withregards to family linkage.

cost categories

We categorised the project expenditure to three -

Categories:

Low - 0-.2 mn

Medium - 2.2 mn - 5 mn

High - 5 mn+

Here we are analysing how they differes withregards to families linkage status

Table 7: Project cost categories wrt politician’s identity
Linkage Cost Categry Proportion of projects
FALSE Low 0.48
TRUE Low 0.51
FALSE Medium 0.34
TRUE Medium 0.27
FALSE High 0.18
TRUE High 0.22

Raphael

Raphael’s booth level data is available for the last 3 UP assembly elections. We use the booth level voting data to see the spread of the vote share.

The following table summarises the families with linkages for last 3 assembly elections in UP.

Table 8: Summary stat of families in 2012 & 2017 AE wrt linkage
Linkage Count
FALSE 104
TRUE 170

Vote dispersion

Table 9: Vote dispersion at booth level wrt Politicians identity
Politician’s Identity Variance
FALSE 367
TRUE 301
Table 10: Vote dispersion at booth level wrt Politicians identity
Politician’s Identity SD
FALSE 18.7
TRUE 17.0