governance
Election promises of free electricity, bus travel, gadgets and monthly cash for women have spread across states, from Tamil Nadu and Delhi to Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh. The Supreme Court has heard petitions on “freebies” and the RBI has warned about some states’ finances. Supporters of such schemes call them welfare that reaches people directly; critics say they crowd out investment and push states into debt.
Take a stance to see what people think.
Results open up once you've answered, so they don't sway you. 611 people have taken a stance so far.
Mark an argument convincing even if you took the other side. It shows which points persuade people across the divide.
Unfunded handouts damage state finances and democracy.
Several states spend more on subsidies and handouts than on capital investment, while borrowing to pay salaries and interest.
Promises made only to win elections, without saying how they will be paid for, mislead voters.
Money spent on freebies is money not spent on schools, hospitals and roads that would raise long-term incomes.
Welfare promises are voters’ choice, not something to restrict.
One person’s freebie is another’s welfare. Free school meals and subsidised rations were once called freebies too.
Direct cash transfers, especially to women, have been found to improve nutrition, schooling and women’s say in households.
Voters, not courts or the Election Commission, should judge which promises are reasonable. Restrictions would be hard to define and easy to misuse.
Where welfare ends and vote-buying begins, and who should decide. Cash transfers to women or free bus travel may raise incomes and mobility; the question is whether they are affordable and whether restrictions would end up limiting legitimate welfare.
