Adeel MalikGlobe Fellow in the Economies of Muslim Societies

Oxford University

Rinchan Ali MirzaDoctoral Candidate in Economic History,

Oxford University

Structural Constraints on Public Goods Provision

Interim Report

Ongoing work streams

Index of religious diversityMapping of current Tehsils on colonial boundariesCollection of historical/archival dataMeasures of political concentration

Snippets of work in progressData PuzzlesCorrelationResearch Direction

Measuring religious diversity

Herfindhal Index of religious fragmentation as shown below:= 1 - j Sj^2

where 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 - j ( (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

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 tehsilsStep 1: Chose base year of 1931 census upon whose tehsils

statistics on current development outcomes are computedStep 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

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

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

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 areasExample:

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

Ahmadpur LammaAhmadpur SharqiAlipur

AllahabadAttock

Bahawalnagar

BahawalpurBhakkar

BhalwalChakwal Chiniot

Chunian

Daska

Dera Ghazi Khan

Dipalpur

Fateh-jangGujar Khan

Gujranwala

Gujrat

Hafizabad

Isa Khel

Jampur

Jaranwala

Jhang

Jhelum

Kabirwala

Kahuta

Kasur

Khairpur

Khanewal

Khanpur KharianKhushabKot Addu

Lahore

Leiah

Lodhran

Lyallpur

Mailsi

Mianwali

MinchinabadMontgomery

Multan

Murree

Muzaffargarh

Nankana Sahib

Narowal

Okara

PakpattanPasrur

Phalia

Pind Dadan KhanPindigheb

Rahim Yar Khan

Rajanpur

Rawalpindi

SamundriSargodhaShahdara

Shahpur

Shakargrah

Sheikhupura

Shorkot

Shujabad

Sialkot

Tallagang

Taunsa

Toba Tek Singh

Wazirabad

.1.2

.3.4

.5.6

.05 .1 .15 .2 .25Proportion depressed caste (district)

Herfindahl Index of Religious Diversity Fitted values

Sialkot

Murree

Gujrat

Kharian

Jhelum

Pind Dadan KhanAllahabad

Gujar Khan

Chiniot

Kahuta

Tallagang

AttockFateh-jang

Khanpur

Bhalwal

Chakwal

Khushab

Hafizabad

KhairpurMuzaffargarh

Phalia

ShujabadAhmadpur Sharqi

Rahim Yar Khan

KabirwalaPindigheb

Shahpur

Bahawalpur

Jampur

Dipalpur

LodhranIsa Khel

Ahmadpur Lamma

MailsiAlipurKot Addu

Wazirabad

ShorkotMianwali

Lahore

Dera Ghazi Khan

Taunsa

Nankana Sahib

MultanPasrur

Leiah

OkaraShakargrah

Daska

Jhang

Bhakkar

Kasur

Minchinabad

MontgomeryBahawalnagarSamundriRawalpindiPakpattan

ChunianNarowal

GujranwalaKhanewalRajanpur

Sargodha

Toba Tek Singh

Jaranwala

Sheikhupura

Lyallpur

Shahdara

-.1

0.1

.2e

( p

rop

_re

mit

| X

)

-.3 -.2 -.1 0 .1 .2e( index | X )

coef = -.2266273, (robust) se = .06128053, t = -3.7

X=density, latitude and longitude

Is religious diversity only acting as a proxy for selection into occupational groups?

Caste Group Gujranw

ala

Lahore

Sialkot

D.G

. Khan

Jhang

Montgom

ery

Multan

Attock

Gujrat

Jhelum

Mianw

ali

Rawalpindi

Shahpur

Bahawalpur

State

Lyallpur

Muzaff

argarh

Agricultural 47 48 56 35 50 59 60 68 59 62 69 70 54 67 61 48 Religious 2 3 3 2 2 1 2 3 3 4 2 3 2 2 1 2 Mercantile 2 8 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 Artisan 24 17 22 3 17 11 10 14 16 15 9 15 13 5 11 9 Menial & Outcast 25 18 18 9 25 26 20 13 21 18 13 8 26 14 22 14 Other 0 5 0 51 5 1 6 0 0 0 5 0 3 11 4 26 Total Muslim 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Caste Group Gujranw

ala

Lahore

Sialkot

D.G

. Khan

Jhang

Montgom

ery

Multan

Attock

Gujrat

Jhelum

Mianw

ali

Rawalpindi

Shahpur

Bahawalpur

State

Lyallpur

Muzaff

argarh

Agricultural 9 11 25 1 1 24 6 3 10 4 1 6 6 16 9 2 Religious 18 16 17 3 7 0 5 10 14 16 6 36 8 3 11 4 Mercantile 57 42 18 81 88 50 80 81 58 62 89 46 72 50 59 79 Artisan 5 3 11 9 2 4 1 4 7 10 3 2 5 5 4 3 Menial & Outcast 6 26 28 0 1 17 2 2 8 3 0 10 6 23 15 1 Other 5 2 1 6 0 4 7 0 2 4 1 0 2 3 1 11 Total Hindu 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Plots and Puzzles I:Rainfall and development in Punjab

AHL

AHM

ALBALI

ATK

BHABHN

BWL

BWP

CHI

CHK

CHU

DAS

DGK DIP

FTJ

GJKGUJ

GUR

HAF

ISK

JAM

JHA

JHE

JRWKAB

KHA

KHP

KHT

KHU

KNP

KOT

KRN

KSR

LHR

LOD

LYA

LYP

MAI

MIA

MIN

MONMUL

MUR

MUZ

NAR

NKS

OKA

PAK

PAS

PDK

PHAPIG

RAW

RJP

RYKSAM

SARSDHSHK

SHO

SHP

SHU

SIA

SKGTAL

TAU

TTS

WAZ

.2.4

.6.8

1

0 20 40 60Average rainfall in tehsil in 1923

Literacy Rate for over 15s Fitted values

Plots and Puzzles II:Public goods provision falls with distance from

Lahore!

Fateh-jangPindigheb

TallagangAttockMinchinabad

Ahmadpur Sharqi

Allahabad

Rahim Yar KhanBahawalnagar

KhanpurBahawalpur

Khairpur Ahmadpur Lamma

Taunsa

Dera Ghazi Khan

Jampur

Rajanpur

GujranwalaHafizabadWazirabadGujrat Phalia

Kharian Chiniot Jhang

ShorkotChakwalPind Dadan Khan

Jhelum

Lahore

Kasur

Chunian

Lyallpur SamundriJaranwala Toba Tek Singh

BhakkarMianwali

Isa Khel

DipalpurMontgomery

Pakpattan

Okara

Lodhran

Kabirwala

Khanewal

Shujabad

MailsiMultan

Kot Addu

Alipur

LeiahMuzaffargarh

MurreeGujar Khan

KahutaRawalpindi

SargodhaBhalwalShahpurKhushab

SheikhupuraShahdaraNankana SahibSialkot

Pasrur ShakargrahDaskaNarowal0.0

5.1

.15

.2

0 200 400 600Distance of tehsil from Lahore

PBGsch5kmore Fitted values

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.

Number of

Electoral Constituencies New Arrivals New_prop

Bahawalpur 35 6 0.171429

D. G. Khan 23 2 0.086957

Muzaffargarh 41 3 0.073171

Khanewal 20 4 0.20

Jhang 47 8 0.170213

Attock 26 3 0.115385

Jhelum 23 7 0.304348

Rawalpindi 52 28 0.538462

Gathering data on land tenures

Rinchan’s PSSP supported ResearchEradication of religious diversity and public goods

0.2

.4

0.2

.4

0.2

.4

0.2

.4

0.2

.4

0.2

.4

0.2

.4

0.2

.4

0.2

.4

0.2

.4

0.2

.4

0.2

.4

0.2

.4

0.2

.4

0.2

.4

0.2

.4

1900 1950 2000 1900 1950 2000 1900 1950 2000 1900 1950 2000

1900 1950 2000 1900 1950 2000 1900 1950 2000 1900 1950 2000

1900 1950 2000 1900 1950 2000 1900 1950 2000 1900 1950 2000

1900 1950 2000 1900 1950 2000 1900 1950 2000 1900 1950 2000

Attock Bahawalpur State Dera Ghazi Khan Gujranwala

Gujrat Jhang Jhelum Lahore

Lyallpur Mianwali Montgomery Multan

Muzaffargarh Rawalpindi Shahpur Sialkot

Pro

port

ion o

f m

ino

rities

West Punjab