Scaling Up: Beyond the Subnational Comparative Method for India
| DOI | 10.1177/2321023015575225 |
| Date | 01 June 2015 |
| Published date | 01 June 2015 |
| Subject Matter | Notes on Methods |
Notes on Methods
Scaling Up: Beyond the Subnational
Comparative Method for India
Aseema Sinha1
It no longer makes sense to talk of India without analyzing its infra-national diversity. Yet, this article
not only argues for the need to build upon but also go beyond the subnational comparative analysis for
India. I make three related points.2 While scholars exploit the variation easily found at the provincial
level in India, they must also take their subnational insights and generalize about India as a whole. Users
of the subnational method must ask: How do the conclusions of subnational variation change or modify
our understanding of India? Second, with economic liberalization and integration of markets within
India, a focus on the subnational level makes forces that span across states and cities invisible. Is India
becoming more integrated even as variation across its sub-state units is increasing? How can we
understand both these phenomena in one analysis?3 In order to understand both spatial differentiation
and integration, we need to analyze diffusion and horizontal competition and processes of convergence
across subnational units (Jenkins, 2000; Saez, 1999; Sinha, 2004). We can no longer look at policies at
the subnational level without examining how policy innovation and e-governance spread across states.
Last, the complexity of India’s internal variation makes us hesitate to do cross-regional and comparative
studies. What can we learn from the subnational diversity of India, Brazil, China or Mexico studied
comparatively? Can we compare such different countries especially when their internal variation
makes easy national-wide descriptions suspect? While difficult to do, I would encourage more cross-
regional and comparative studies that do not ignore the internal variation within India.4 Overall,
disaggregating the state to its lower levels may not be enough, and this article urges the need for a
ʻscaling up framework’ as a complementary strategy to scaling down. Such a ʻscaling up framework’
must try to craft larger inferential statements about India, while keeping in mind its subnational diversity,
the national or global context and the interstate experimentation relevant for the phenomenon
under study.
1 Wagener Chair in South Asian Politics and George R. Roberts Fellow, Associate Professor, Department of Government,
Claremont McKenna College, Claremont, CA, USA.
2 Subnational refers to analysis conducted at levels below the nation-state. Examples include provinces, called states in India,
districts, or cities.
3 For an innovative study of globalization and integration see Nayar (2014). Even at 83, Baldev Raj Nayar has written a book
exploring a topic that is new, and fascinating! Younger scholars would do well to learn from his work.
4 For similar arguments see the Special Issue of APSA-CD (2012) devoted to the lessons learnt from the subnational comparative
method.
Corresponding author:
Aseema Sinha, Department of Government, Claremont McKenna College, 888 Columbia Avenue, Claremont, CA
91711, USA.
E-mail: aseema.sinha@cmc.edu.
Studies in Indian Politics
3(1) 128–133
© 2015 Lokniti, Centre for the
Study of Developing Societies
SAGE Publications
sagepub.in/home.nav
DOI: 10.1177/2321023015575225
http://inp.sagepub.com
To continue reading
Request your trial