Welfare schemes alone no guarantee for votes, delivery and finances matter

Beneficiaries of such programmes give credit to central govt, but study finds poor service delivery, financial well-being influence voting pattern, writes ARCHIS MOHAN

A recent study of post-poll surveys from the 2024 general elections has concluded that beneficiaries of welfare schemes are “no longer passive recipients but have become discerning consumers”. 

The study also found that more respondents credited the central government for welfare schemes in 2024 than five years ago, especially the free food grain scheme under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana. It found a 30-point increase in the number of people crediting the Centre for the success of the schemes related to work, housing, health, and fuel compared to 2019. 

Conducted by K K Kailash of the University of Hyderabad, the study, titled The Politics of Social Welfare: The BJP and the Discerning Voter, analysed data from the National Elections Studies (NES)’s post-poll survey on welfare and voting in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections and compared it with similar data collected over the last two decades.

  The study found that having the same party in power at the Centre and in the state did not make any difference to the beneficiaries if their experience in accessing services was poor. “Even those who benefitted from schemes were not inclined to vote for the incumbent if they had difficulty accessing services,” it said. According to the study, welfare benefits may generate goodwill and long-lasting electoral rewards only if beneficiaries have a positive experience using these services.

  The analysis revealed that voters dissatisfied with their current financial situation were unlikely to vote for the incumbent, even if they received welfare benefits. “If welfare provisioning is an integral part of voter mobilisation strategies, governments may need to focus on improving access and addressing other dimensions of the economy that impact personal well-being for electoral rewards,” the study said.

  The findings, published in the latest issue of ‘Studies in Indian Politics’ by Lokniti, Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS), echoed that having the same party in power at both levels of government did not significantly influence voters.

  It observed that while the same government at the Centre and in the state may make it easier for a political party when it comes to campaigning, “the voter was more concerned with the delivery dimension” and ended up punishing the incumbent government and party. “Credit claiming, therefore, has its limits and will benefit the party only if delivery systems and administration at the local level are improved,” the study has argued. 

  The study also highlighted that discerning voters create space for the Opposition, forcing governments to be more accountable. Opposition parties can underline service delivery issues, propose alternative welfare models, and challenge governments. “Incumbent governments will have to focus on improving service delivery to meet increasing citizen expectations. Therefore, the emergence of discerning voters is a positive sign for democracy and democratic accountability,” the study said.

  The post-poll survey covered almost the entire country and was conducted in 23 states across 191 parliamentary constituencies. It used a data set of 19,663 voters weighted by state population. The survey included questions on welfare schemes, some of which have been asked in previous national and state election surveys.

  The study found that non-beneficiaries are less likely to vote for the incumbent. Similarly, those who receive benefits from fewer schemes prefer the Opposition over the incumbent. However, the incumbent’s advantage increases as the volume of benefits increases.

  Despite variations in access to programmes, the study found a clear trend in credit attribution. Over six in 10 voters credited the central government for schemes related to work, housing, health, and fuel. Similarly, more than half of respondents credited the central government for the food programme. “Given the branding and constant reminders through advertisements in multiple spaces that these programmes were personal ‘guarantees’ of the prime minister, this attribution is not surprising,” the study noted. The study states that the campaign that the central government was responsible for the welfare programmes did have its intended effect.

  According to the study, voters’ personal financial conditions and their relationship with welfare schemes are also decisive in voting choices. It found that when people are satisfied with their personal financial circumstances, the more welfare programmes they benefit from, the greater the support for the incumbent. In contrast, when dissatisfied with their personal circumstances, the volume of programmes does not matter. “It follows that the programmes on offer did not do much to change their personal economic circumstances and this probably influenced voting choices,” the author says.

  Delivery of services

  The coverage of welfare schemes has increased across states compared to 2019. According to the study, states with congruent governments (Centre and state) performed better than the national average in delivering health schemes, whereas Opposition-ruled states excelled in food delivery.

  For fuel and housing delivery, Odisha outperformed other states and was among the top performers in providing work opportunities. However, in larger states like Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra, beneficiary coverage was much lower than the national average across almost all schemes. This pattern, according to the study, reflects the traditionally weak to moderate welfare regimes in these states.

  The sharpest rise in beneficiaries was among those who used the public distribution system (PDS), the study says. While only four of every 10 (43 per cent) of the respondents claimed to have been beneficiaries of the PDS in 2019, it went up to a whopping two-thirds (67 per cent) in 2024. More than half (56 per cent) of the urban and three-fourths (73 per cent) of the rural voters claimed to have benefitted from the PDS. No other welfare service saw such a high level of demand, it found.