Introduction

In recent years, the widespread practice of offering freebies, ranging from subsidised goods and services to outright giveaways, has become a prominent feature in economic policies worldwide. While the immediate appeal of these measures is undeniable, a closer examination reveals a series of negative impacts on the economy. Indian politics is no exception to it. In recent times, Indian politics has witnessed a surge in controversy surrounding the distribution of freebies by political parties. Political parties have come under scrutiny for their promises of free goods, services, or subsidies, raising concerns about the fiscal implications and the potential impact on long-term economic stability. The practice of providing freebies in Indian politics is not new; however, its prevalence and scale have increased significantly. Various state governments have rolled out schemes offering free laptops, smartphones, healthcare services, and even electricity subsidies to targeted voter demographics. While the intentions behind such initiatives are often rooted in addressing socio-economic disparities, the potential consequences and ethical considerations have come under scrutiny. Critics argue that such populist measures may be politically motivated, aimed at garnering votes without addressing systemic issues. Supporters, on the other hand, assert that these initiatives are crucial for uplifting marginalised sections of society and fulfilling electoral promises. The debate on freebies in Indian politics underscores the delicate balance between addressing immediate social needs and ensuring sustainable economic policies. 

Public discourse on this matter continues to evolve, reflecting the complex intersection of politics, governance, and socio-economic priorities. Ultimately, the evaluation of "freebies" in politics depends on factors such as the effectiveness of the programs, their sustainability, and whether they contribute to long-term socio-economic development. Public opinion on these policies can vary, and discussions around them often involve considerations of fiscal responsibility, social justice, and the overall well-being of the population.

What are Freebies?

Freebies refer to complimentary goods, services, or benefits provided without direct cost to individuals or groups, often by government entities, businesses, or political figures. These giveaways are typically employed as a strategic tool to achieve various objectives, such as gaining public favour, influencing opinions, or fulfilling campaign promises. In the context of politics, freebies may include social welfare programs, subsidies, tax incentives, or the distribution of tangible items. While they can be seen as a means to address immediate societal needs or stimulate economic activity, controversies arise over the potential consequences, such as fiscal challenges and dependency. The distribution of free material goods to underserved communities by the government, intended for socio-economic improvement, can become controversial when tied to electoral cycles. Critics view such practices as manipulative attempts to sway voters rather than genuine efforts towards societal progress. Additionally, the widespread distribution of welfare goods incurs significant costs to the public treasury, potentially diverting resources from essential long-term development initiatives. These freebies, often labelled populist welfare schemes or electoral giveaways, refer to the practice of political parties offering free goods or services to the electorate in exchange for political support and votes. The concept of freebies encapsulates a dynamic interplay between political strategy, public perception, and socio-economic considerations, shaping the discourse around the role of government and the responsibilities it bears toward its citizens.

According to the RBI report "While there is no precise definition of freebies, it is necessary to distinguish them from public goods, such as the Public Distribution System, Health and Education Related Schemes, Employment Guarantee Schemes, and so on." Provisions of free electricity, free water, free public transportation, loan waivers, and other freebies, on the other hand, are regarded as freebies, which may undermine credit culture, distort prices through cross-subsidization, and erode incentives for private investment and disincentives to work at the current wage rate led to a drop in labor force participation" (RBI,2022).

Theoretical Frameworks

There are mainly three theoretical frameworks that explain the rise of freebies in politics- Public Choice Theory, Development Economics and Welfare Economics. In India's political arena, Public Choice Theory (PCT) shines a light on the motivations behind "freebies" (Buchanan & Tullock, 1962; Downs, 1957). Framing politics as a market, PCT portrays politicians as self-interested actors (Mueller, 2003) offering freebies – akin to benefits in market exchanges – to maximize their "votes" (Besley & Burgess, 2010). This vote-buying strategy aims not only to secure electoral victory but also to strengthen patronage networks and cater to specific interest groups (Iyer, 2015). While freebies might hold the allure of short-term economic gains (Besley & Burgess, 2010), concerns loom regarding their long-term impact. The potential for fiscal strain, market distortions (Iyer, 2015), and inefficiencies shrouded in corruption raise questions about their sustainability and equitable distribution (Mueller, 2003). Through the lens of PCT, freebies become calculable tools in a political game, demanding scrutiny of their true costs and benefits.

Development economics, while acknowledging the potential benefits of freebies like poverty reduction and improved social welfare (Iyer, 2015), approaches them with cautious scepticism. Concerns revolve around fiscal sustainability (Besley & Burgess, 2010), efficiency of resource allocation (Mueller, 2003), and potential distortions in economic mechanisms (Buchanan & Tullock, 1962). 

While short-term economic stimulation through increased demand is possible, it must be weighed against long-term fiscal burdens and the potential crowding out of private investment. Targeting and implementation challenges associated with freebies can lead to leakages and inefficient resource allocation, undermining their intended impact on reducing poverty and inequality (Besley & Burgess, 2010). Ultimately, development economics advocates for a nuanced approach, evaluating freebies within the context of their specific design, targeting, and long-term impact on overall economic growth and development. 

Within the framework of Welfare Economics, freebies in India present a complex trade-off between immediate benefits and long-term societal welfare. Proponents argue that well-designed freebies, particularly in forms like subsidised basic goods and services, can directly address poverty and improve the well-being of vulnerable populations (Sen, 1987). This aligns with the principle of efficiency, aiming to maximize utility for a given level of resources. Additionally, freebies can promote equity by redistributing resources toward disadvantaged groups, potentially reducing inequality (Atkinson, 1970). However, critics counter that poorly targeted or inefficient freebies can impose a significant fiscal burden on governments, potentially jeopardising future investments in crucial areas like infrastructure and education (Stiglitz, 2000). Furthermore, concerns exist about distortionary effects on markets, unfair competition for private businesses, and potential disincentives for work participation (Boadway & Wildasin, 2004). Ultimately, the welfare impact of freebies hinges on their design, targeting, and implementation effectiveness. Evaluating their success requires careful cost-benefit analysis and consideration of distributional consequences within a broader economic context.

These three theoretical approaches weave a complex tapestry around policy decisions involving "freebies." Public Choice Theory sheds light on the political motivations behind freebie policies, highlighting vote-buying strategies and rent-seeking by special interests (Buchanan & Tullock, 1962; Downs, 1957). Development Economics, concerned with sustainable growth and poverty reduction, expresses caution, emphasising potential fiscal burdens, market distortions, and targeting inefficiencies (Besley & Burgess, 2010; Mueller, 2003). Welfare Economics provides, tools to assess the overall societal welfare impact of freebies, weighing immediate benefits against long-term consequences and distributional effects (Iyer, 2015). Ultimately, understanding these interlinkages is crucial for navigating the trade-offs inherent in freebie policies, ensuring informed decision-making that balances political realities with sustainable development and equitable welfare outcomes.

Freebies are People-Centric

Proponents of freebies argue that these measures are essential for uplifting the underprivileged and fulfilling the electoral promises made by political parties. They contend that such populist programs are a direct response to the needs of the marginalised sections of society, fostering inclusivity and social welfare. Being people-centric implies a focus on improving the lives of individuals, ensuring their well-being, and prioritising humans development over economic or corporate interests. Studies like Devereux and Roope (2013) and Duflo (2004) demonstrate the effectiveness of conditional cash transfer programs in reducing poverty and improving child health and education outcomes in developing countries. These findings suggest that well-designed freebies can directly address poverty and improve lives. Authors like Hanushek and Woessmann (2015) argue that investments in education and healthcare through freebies contribute to human capital development.

This can lead to improved productivity, economic growth, and long-term societal benefits. Besley and McLaren (2016) suggest that freebies can empower citizens by granting them access to resources and choices, particularly for marginalised groups. This can enhance their agency and participation in the political process. Supporters of freebies mainly keep social justice and cultural preservation over traditional notions of economic development.

Freebies are Anti-development 

On the flip side, critics raise concerns about the long-term fiscal implications of these populist measures. They argue that while providing immediate relief, freebies might strain public finances, leading to economic instability and hindering sustainable development. The debate intensifies when considering whether such measures address the root causes of poverty and inequality or merely provide temporary relief. In a world marked by dynamic economic policies and evolving consumer expectations, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has released a comprehensive report delving into the impact of freebies on the nation's economic landscape. As political parties and governments increasingly turn to populist measures, the RBI's scrutiny of the fiscal and monetary implications of freebies is both timely and critical for maintaining economic stability. One key aspect explored in the report is the strain on public finances caused by the distribution of freebies. The RBI meticulously analyses how these measures, while potentially serving short-term political objectives, may contribute to fiscal deficits and increase the burden of public debt. Insights are provided on governments' challenges in maintaining fiscal responsibility while fulfilling electoral promises. The report delves into the potential inflationary pressures stemming from freebies. By injecting additional demand into the economy, the distribution of free goods and services can lead to a rise in prices. The RBI evaluates the role of monetary policy in mitigating inflationary risks, balancing the need for economic stimulus with the imperative of price stability.

Freebies can impede economic growth by diverting resources away from essential long-term investments. When a significant portion of the budget is allocated to immediate consumption rather than infrastructure development, education, or innovation, the economy may suffer in the long run. Sustainable growth requires prudent fiscal policies that balance the needs of the present with the imperatives of the future. Freebies, in this context, may act as impediments to the creation of a robust and dynamic economic foundation. Concerns exist about inefficient targeting and leakages in freebie programs as highlighted by Dasgupta (2011). This can exacerbate inequality and undermine the effectiveness of such schemes. One of the primary concerns associated with the distribution of freebies is the strain it places on public finances. Governments, often facing the pressure of populist demands, may resort to unsustainable fiscal policies to fund these initiatives. This can lead to budget deficits, increased public debt, and, in extreme cases, economic crises. Critics like Easterly (2006) argue that freebies can strain government budgets, leading to deficits and jeopardising long-term economic stability. Additionally, diverting resources from infrastructure and other essential services can hinder overall development. The short-term political gains achieved through freebies may thus come at the cost of jeopardizing the overall economic health of a nation. Authors like Rodrik (2014) warn that the focus on short-term electoral gains through freebies can discourage long-term investments in productive capacity and crucial reforms. This can lead to unsustainable welfare programs and hinder economic progress.

The distribution of freebies undoubtedly has an impact on electoral outcomes. Political parties often strategically design these programs to appeal to specific voter demographics, aiming to secure their allegiance. However, questions arise about the role of informed decision-making in a democracy when voters might be swayed more by short-term incentives than a comprehensive evaluation of a party's policies. One of the significant concerns with the proliferation of freebies is the potential creation of a dependency culture. If citizens come to expect continuous handouts, it could undermine initiatives that focus on skill development, job creation, and long-term economic growth. 

This can lead to a decline in productivity and innovation, hindering the nation's competitiveness on a global scale. Critics like Manor (2008) argue that freebies can create a culture of dependence on government handouts, discouraging individual initiative and entrepreneurship. This can erode long-term economic and social progress. In the long term, an economy built on dependency rather than productivity risks stagnation and decline. Moreover, the accountability of political leaders may be questioned if they resort to freebies as a quick-fix solution rather than implementing sustainable policies. Introducing freebies can distort market mechanisms by artificially influencing demand and supply dynamics. Subsidies and giveaways may create an artificial demand for certain products or services, leading to market inefficiencies and distortions. This, in turn, can disrupt the natural balance of competition and innovation, potentially stifling entrepreneurship and healthy market competition.

Concerns arise when freebies are targeted based on political or identity factors (caste, religion) instead of objective criteria. Selective distribution risks exacerbating social divisions and bolstering identity politics while sidelining broader development goals. Implementing and monitoring such programs also presents significant administrative hurdles. Transparency, accountability, and robust delivery systems are crucial to prevent leakages, corruption, and exclusion of qualified recipients. Ineffective governance and insufficient infrastructure can compromise freebie schemes, leading to inefficiencies and subpar outcomes.

Indian Scenario

In the last few years, political parties in India are increasingly using freebies to lure voters. A recent Reserve Bank of India report, "State Finances: A Risk Analysis," raises red flags about the financial stability of several Indian States including West Bengal, Punjab, Kerala, Rajasthan, and Andhra Pradesh due to their reliance on expensive social welfare programs and the distribution of freebies (RBI,2022). 

Among these, Punjab is projected to be the most critically affected, with its debt-to-GDP ratio exceeding 45 per cent by 2026-27, according to the RBI. Rajasthan, Kerala, and West Bengal are also projected to see significant debt burdens, with their debt-to-GDP ratios surpassing 35 per cent by the same timeframe. Even the state governments of debt-ridden states are offering so many freebies, especially in election years. 

One of these debt-ridden states Rajasthan is having an assembly election this year.  In the case of Rajasthan, the debt burden has reached a staggering ₹5.37 lakh crore by March 2023, according to Reserve Bank of India data. Since there were elections in 2023-24, the Rajasthan government unveiled a budget laden with subsidies and freebies like smart phones, scooters, laptops, subsidized domestic electricity, and LPG cylinders.

Details of Freebies in Rajasthan 2023-24

Rajasthan's freebies present a double-edged sword. The state's reliance on high VAT on petrol and diesel to finance these programs comes at a hefty cost to its citizens. This burden has directly cost Rajasthan Rs. 9846 crores, with the potential for further damage through inflation caused by higher fuel prices as most of the products are transported by road. Keeping higher fuel prices for the long term may encourage new industrial units to set up in neighbouring states as fuel costs affect profitability. This in turn increases unemployment and creates a more marginalised population. 

Higher Fuel cost and its impact

Furthermore, the financial strain on state power companies, already burdened by debt, intensifies under the pressure of freebie programs The cumulative debt of the three discoms of the state has crossed Rs 79,000 crore by the end of March 2023. In 2016, these Discom companies were under debt of Rs. 83000 crore and were on the verge of collapsing. At that time GoI bailed them out by taking over 75 per cent of debt i.e. Rs. 62000 crore. At the present rate of subsidies, these companies are going to default on their loan repayment in the next two years. The government is already paying Rs. 5000 crore interest due to loan waiver every year.

Global Experience 

Global experience of freebies also has a mixed bag. Brazil's Bolsa Família program has achieved success in reducing poverty but raised concerns about fiscal sustainability (Araujo & Edwards, 2014). Conditional cash transfers in Kenya have had mixed results, with studies like Haushofer and Shapiro (2016) highlighting the importance of program design and implementation. Debates about "welfare states" in North America and Europe raise similar concerns about cost and dependency, albeit in different contexts (Béland & Lecours, 2012).

Way Forward

Concerns are mounting that India's reliance on "freebies" to sway voters could trigger a financial crisis akin to Sri Lanka's recent debacle. N.K. Singh, head of the Fifteenth Finance Commission, issued a stark warning, calling freebies a "fast track to fiscal disaster." He argues that if political parties shift focus towards building long-term solutions – quality education, healthcare, sanitation, women's safety, and robust infrastructure – that genuinely reach targeted demographics, the allure of short-term handouts will diminish. Until Indian democracy is mature enough to do away with freebies, we need to take certain steps to deal with their ill effects. A clear definition is crucial for meaningful policy discussions and regulation (Bardhan & Mookherjee, 2006). Balancing short-term and long-term goals is essential. Hence, we need to design programs that address immediate needs while promoting sustainable development requires innovative strategies (Hanushek & Woessmann, 2015). Robust governance mechanisms are necessary to ensure resources reach intended beneficiaries and programs are delivered efficiently (Dasgupta, 2011). We need strong political will for the implementation of reforms to address concerns about freebies often necessitates tackling vested interests and navigating complex political dynamics (Manor, 2008). Following the Madras High Court's 2021 recommendation, reinvesting "freebie" funds into job creation, healthcare, and infrastructure has proven effective in driving a country's social and economic development. Making all political party manifestos legally binding would further curb reliance on short-term incentives like freebies to win votes. Sri Lanka's economic crisis serves as a stark reminder of the importance of fiscal discipline, responsible governance, and moving away from a culture of handouts.

Conclusion

The issue of freebies in Indian politics is a complex and multifaceted one. While the intention behind such initiatives is often noble – aiming to uplift the disadvantaged and bridge socio-economic gaps – the long-term consequences and trade-offs must be carefully considered. Striking a balance between addressing immediate needs and fostering a sustainable, inclusive development model is crucial. As India navigates its democratic path, finding this equilibrium will be pivotal in ensuring that freebies serve as catalysts for positive change rather than as short-term political manoeuvres. Policymakers must strive for a balanced approach that addresses immediate needs, promotes long-term economic growth, and ensures sustainable public finances. Only then can they design effective and responsible social welfare programs that truly empower citizens and contribute to a brighter future.

References

1. Araujo, M. C., & Edwards, S. (2014). Fiscal sustainability of the Bolsa Família program in Brazil. World Development, 64, 145-161.a

2. Atkinson, A. B. (1970). On the measurement of inequality. Journal of Economic Theory, 2(1), 1-24.

3. Bardhan, P., & Mookherjee, D. (2006). The political economy of public goods provision in poor societies. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(1), 7-24. 

4. Béland, D., & Lecours, A. (2012). Comparing welfare states: Social assistance policies in nine developed countries. Oxford University Press.

5. Besley, T., & McLaren, J. (2016). Political participation and the definition of the "political." American Political Science Review, 110(4), 706-723.

6. Besley, Timothy, and Robin Burgess. "Political Macroeconomics in India." Handbook of Development Economics, vol. 5, Part 2, edited by Dani Rodrik and T.C. Holmes, pp. 1565-1645. Elsevier, 2010.

7. Boadway, R. W., & Wildasin, D. E. (2004). Public finance (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill Ryerson.

8. Buchanan, James M., and Gordon Tullock. The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy. University of Michigan Press, 1962.

9. Dasgupta, A. (2011). Inequality and governance: Poverty, social welfare, and development in less developed countries. Palgrave Macmillan. 

10. Devereux, S., & Roope, L. (2013). The economics of conditional cash transfers. The World Bank Economic Review, 27(1), 1-23. 

11. Downs, Anthony. An Economic Theory of Democracy. Addison-Wesley, 1957.

12. Duflo, E. (2004). The impact of microfinance on female employment and empowerment: Evidence from rural Bangladesh. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 18(4), 79-102.

13. Easterly, W. (2006). White elephants: Elephants are to Asian economies what white elephants are to political careers. Journal of Public Economics, 90(6-7), 1423-1445. 

14. Hanushek, E. A., & Woessmann, L. (2015). General education, specific human capital, and productivity growth. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29(4), 27-48.

15. Haushofer, J., & Shapiro, J. N. (2016). The long-term impact of unconditional cash transfers: Experimental evidence from Kenya. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 131(3), 1333-1366.

16. Iyer, Lakshmi. "Freebies and Redistribution: Evidence from India's MGNREGA Program." Journal of Development Economics, vol. 116, pp. 112-130, 2015.

17. Manor, P. (2008). Patronage and democracy in India. Journal of Democracy, 19(1), 51-65.

18. Mueller, Dennis C. Public Choice. Cambridge University Press, 2003

19. RBI report, June 2022, State Finances: A Risk Analysis

20. Rodrik, D. (2014). The paradox of good governance: Why good institutions produce bad development. Oxford University Press. 

21. Sen, A. K. (1987). On ethics and economics. Blackwell Pub.

22. Stiglitz, J. E. (2000). Public finance in a globalized economy. W.W. Norton & Company.