Chapter 5 has used a statistical analysis to show that the differences in the behavior of Indian state governments toward local democratic institutions can be explained in large part by the degree to which the state chief minister faces competition for control over the party's organizational networks. While the statistical analysis demonstrates correlations across cases, this chapter hones in on the workings of state governments in Kerala and Tamil Nadu to shed light on whether the within-case dynamics are consistent with the implications of the book's argument.

This chapter studies the implementation of local democratization and devolution (or lack thereof) that took place under four different state governments – three successive state governments in Kerala that were in office between 1991 and 2001 and one state government in Tamil Nadu that was in office between 1991 and 1996. The chapter mainly relies on examining the dynamics of intraparty competition and local democratization within these cases. However, a comparison of the successive governments within the state of Kerala over time allows us to gain an understanding of how the process of local democratization and devolution unfolds over time. The case of Tamil Nadu is a useful contrasting case and helps to show that how the book's theoretical argument can be used to explain the otherwise puzzling divergence in local government reform across the two states.

These cases were chosen for initial exploration of the determinants of local democratization because they presented puzzles that proved a useful starting point for theory-building. The case of Kerala presented a puzzle since, as described later, it underwent significant changes with regard to the presence of local democracy and the extent of devolution in a matter of a decade. The case of Tamil Nadu was chosen because although it shares several socioeconomic and cultural similarities with Kerala, it lagged behind Kerala as well as many other states in the implementation of local democratization and devolution.

Taken individually, the cases prove especially useful in illustrating the following aspects of the argument. First, they provide examples of how and why a chief executive comes to face competition within the party in some cases and not in others.