Populism or Empowerment:

Understanding How Voters Perceive Freebies and Welfare Schemes

Abstract

In recent years, the use of electoral freebies, such as goods, services, direct cash transfers, etc, has prompted critical debate about their legitimacy and long-term impact on democratic processes. This study investigates how voters perceive such electoral giveaways in contrast to welfare initiatives aiming at capacity building and social development. Specifically, this paper examines public perception of the distinction between populist giveaways and structured welfare, and whether such provisions are seen as tools of empowerment or instruments of dependency. Drawing on responses from over 60 individuals through a structured questionnaire, administered online, using non-probability snowball sampling, this research captures insights across diverse age groups, regions, educational backgrounds, and socioeconomic strata. The findings reveal that educated, urban, middle and high-income respondents, particularly those aged 18-45, largely distinguished welfare as long-term, need-based support (eg, education and healthcare), while categorising election-time giveaways, like free electricity, devices, and direct cash, as manipulative. These were often criticised for fostering dependency and straining public resources.  Notably, students and other young participants (18–25 years) frequently rejected freebies as manipulative rather than alluring. Even those who were apolitical and did not cast ballots had ethical and financial consciousness. Participants with high incomes (₹10L+ per year) raised concerns around sustainability and governance accountability. While some respondents acknowledged the appeal of short-term benefits, they only endorsed them when aligned with long-term development goals. The overall findings suggest that poorly targeted freebies may have adversely impacted political opinions, especially among informed voters. This study hopes to contribute to ongoing policy debates on welfare, electoral ethics, and governance by highlighting how voters interpret and evaluate state-provided benefits in a complex democratic landscape.