The Politics of Dignity: How Status Inequality shaped Redistributive Politics in India
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conventional theories of the welfare state are premised on the interests of social classes – the wealthy elite oppose redistribution, while the working class supports expansive social rights. I argue that in multiethnic societies with long histories of discrimination, ethnic groups are motivated by concerns of enhancing their material well-being as well as their social status. Political elites from dominant groups are more likely to oppose redistributive policies, but unlike the working class, the policy preference of marginal groups is mediated by the level of status inequality. Under conditions of high inequality, concerns of dignity find precedence over pure redistribute policies. The politics of dignity is most concretely manifested through demands for symbolic and descriptive representation. I demonstrate this in the context of India by examining the caste identity of legislators, patterns in public spending and historical accounts of demands by lower caste mobilizations in major states over five decades.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it