The political economy of voting behavior examines how political incentives, economic conditions, and social forces shape voter decisions. Socrates cautioned against uninformed voting, advocating for education and critical thinking as prerequisites for democratic participation. In modern democracies like India, a prevalent electoral strategy involves offering what some people term "freebies" – subsidies, loan waivers, and direct cash transfers – to economically disadvantaged groups. While these initiatives can reduce income disparities, they also raise concerns about political manipulation and long-term economic viability. This blog goes into what might explain voter behavior with regards to incentives and considers the broader implications of redistribution policies.

Theoretical Framework: “Freebies” and Redistribution Models

Freebies are closely associated with redistribution models, such as those proposed by Dixit and Londregan (1996), where politicians strategically allocate resources to swing constituencies or loyal voter bases. In this context, voters are viewed as rational agents aiming to maximize their welfare. However, Socratic concerns highlight a critical issue: if voters lack adequate information or critical reasoning skills, they may favor short-term benefits over long-term economic and political stability. “Freebies” serve not only as material benefits but also as indicators of a candidate’s ability to deliver future resources, further influencing voter perceptions and expectations.

Empirical Evidence: Political Targeting and Economic Impact

Empirical studies support the idea that ruling parties use targeted allocations to create localized economic benefits. Asher and Novosad (2017) found that constituencies represented by ruling party politicians experience higher growth rates due to preferential resource distribution. Similarly, firms in regions governed by the ruling party often see positive market responses, reflecting political favoritism. For instance, the surge in Adani and Reliance shares following the 2024 exit polls indicated investor anticipation of continued preferential treatment under the ruling government. “Freebies” enhance these trends by providing immediate financial relief, stimulating local economies, and boosting short-term public satisfaction. However, overreliance on such measures can lead to fiscal imbalances and deter long-term economic planning.

In recent years, India's political landscape has seen a notable shift regarding the use of "freebies" as tools for electoral gain. Despite the current prime minister’s criticisms of such handouts, referring to them as "muft ki rebdi", his party has increasingly incorporated these strategies into its campaigns across various states, including Maharashtra, Haryana, and Delhi. This evolving stance on “freebies” aligns with redistribution models where political entities allocate resources to specific voter bases to maximize electoral returns. This strategic allocation aims to enhance immediate welfare, potentially at the expense of long-term economic planning.

Recent events underscore the strategic deployment of “freebies” to secure electoral victories:

Maharashtra's "Mukhyamantri Majhi Ladki Bahin Yojana": Introduced in August 17, 2024, a month before the announcement of the Vidhan Sabha elections in the state, this scheme provided ₹1,500 per month to women aged 21 to 65 with an annual income below ₹2.5 lakh. Approximately one crore women stood to benefit from this initiative, which was pivotal in the BJP-led coalition's return to power in the state.
Delhi Assembly Elections 2025: The BJP's manifesto promised to maintain existing free services, such as electricity, water, and bus travel, while expanding benefits to include male students and senior citizens. Some argue this approach contributed to the party securing 47 out of 70 seats in the assembly, marking its return to power in Delhi after 27 years.

While these measures have yielded short-term political gains, they have also prompted discussions about fiscal sustainability and the potential for fostering dependency among beneficiaries. Notably, the "Mukhyamantri Majhi Ladki Bahin Yojana" alone has an approved budget of around ₹46,000 crore, of the total Rs. 6,12,293 crore budget for 2024-25. While many argue that this helps in reallocating wealth, the current administration itself has acknowledged that the Ladki Bahin Yojana has resulted in a significant reallocation of funds, diverting Rs. 10,000 crore from social justice and tribal departments. Despite an overall hike in SC and ST components, funds for critical social welfare departments seem to have been reduced.

Targeted benefits can also manifest in less legitimate forms, such as corruption that diverts state resources to specific constituents. When state resources are captured to reward specific voting behaviours, it can lead to severe loss to the state exchequer and reduce the quantity or quality of service delivery – the latter leading to more give-and-take behaviour among politicians and voters. Money for “freebies” eventually has to come from somewhere, ultimately impacting either economic development, social development, or financial stability.

Social Forces: Caste, Religion, and Regional Identities

Beyond economic incentives, social forces such as caste, religion, and regional identities significantly influence voting behavior. Christophe (2006) emphasises how caste-based trust and affiliations affect electoral decisions, particularly in India's diverse social landscape. In such contexts, “freebies” enhance a politician’s public image but are filtered through existing social loyalties and trust networks, mostly this related with the political ideologies. When politicians give out free goods or services ("freebies"), people don’t just see them as gifts—they judge them based on their existing beliefs and political loyalties. Freebies make a leader look good to their loyal supporters, strengthening their vote bank. At the same time, they can attract neutral or undecided voters who might feel tempted by these short-term benefits. This dynamic underscores Socrates’ warning that uninformed voters can be easily swayed by immediate benefits rather than considering broader governance issues.

Ethical Considerations: Corruption and Voter Tolerance

The intersection of “freebies” and voter tolerance for unethical practices adds complexity to the analysis of electoral behavior. Corruption scandals and criminal accusations can impact governance outcomes and erode public trust in democratic institutions. However, the continued electability of candidates with criminal backgrounds suggests that voters may prioritize tangible short-term benefits such as “freebies” over concerns about governance and institutional integrity. Socratic principles suggest that a more informed electorate would critically assess these issues, resisting short-term inducements in favor of fair, accountable, and sustainable governance.

Conclusion

The provision of “freebies” in electoral politics exemplifies the dynamic relationship between political incentives, economic redistribution, and social forces. While these measures can generate short-term satisfaction and reduce income disparities, they also risk promoting dependency and diverting attention from long-term economic planning. Socratic concerns about uninformed voting thus remain pertinent, as voters lacking critical engagement may be susceptible to manipulation through short-term incentives.

Furthermore, caste, religion, and social affiliations often override economic rationality in shaping voter preferences. Understanding these interactions is essential for evaluating the broader implications of “freebies” on political accountability, resource allocation, and democratic stability. A balanced approach – combining welfare initiatives with sustainable economic policies – can help mitigate the risks while ensuring inclusive growth.

Anjuman Barsinge