So what was the economic context of the typical MP voter? To answer this, an important sub-question needs to be asked. What was the time horizon of the typical voter? That is, did he judge the incumbent on the basis of economic performance over the last few months leading up to the elections or its performance over the whole term?

We in the media have short-term memory and we assume so do voters. But a fascinating research paper by Stuti Khemani, published under the aegis of the World Bank’s Development Research Group, indicates that in state elections voters may be judging incumbents by their performance over the whole term. Voters react more reflexively to election-time contexts in national elections.

Khemani argues this is because voters judge state governments, which have large developmental roles, to be more directly responsible for their quality of life. Their votes in state elections are therefore more “rational” and less “myopic”. Khemani’s data set spans 1960 to 1992 for 14 major states. There’s no reason to assume these premises and conclusions on voting behaviour have changed since then. Indeed, post-reforms state governments have in general become more economics-conscious.

MP’s voters did face some not-so-happy economic contexts just before the election. CMIE data (from the organisation’s Monthly Review of States in India) shows that southwest monsoon started well in the state but faltered after June. This affected kharif sowing operations. Most crops registered a lower acreage than last year. Foodgrain distribution through subsidised schemes also registered a fall in the months before the election. In a relatively poor state with heavy dependence on agriculture, these are not pro-incumbency economic contexts. Unless we think, as Khemani did, that MP voters were thinking of the BJP’s whole five years. In that time frame, these data don’t show up the government badly.

... contd.