ISSN 2477-1686  

 Vol. 11 No. 25 Januari 2025

 

How Aid Possibly Attracts Voters: Short v. Long-Term Oriented Thoughts

 By

Any Rufaedah

Department of Psychology Universitas Nahdlatul Ulama Indonesia,

Division for Applied Social Psychology Research (DASPR), & Defence Studies King’s College London

 

Between January and February 2024, ahead of the Indonesian election, now-former President Joko Widodo (aka Jokowi) distributed 12,8 trillion rupiah in social aid (Indonesian: Bantuan Sosial/Bansos) for 18,7 million beneficiaries (Kartika, 2024). The distribution during the presidential election campaign drew wide criticism from society, including from students, activists, and academia, alleging that the aid was intentionally used to attract people to choose Prabowo Subianto, the presidential candidate who ran with Jokowi’s son Gibran Rakabuming Raka.

On the other hand, Prabowo-Gibran promoted free lunch for school students as their primary program if they were elected. This raised negative sentiment, stating that the program is not the state's priority and wastes national funds. Economic empowerment and employment-related programs are considered more urgent than free lunch. Though Prabowo-Gibran stated the urgency of the program to tackle the stunting issue across the country, many people thought conversely.

Despite wide criticism, Prabowo-Gibran won the race. Over 96 million people, equal to 58% of total voters, elected the pair. Jokowi’s reputation was believed to have contributed significantly to the winning; nevertheless, it could not be separated from the effect of social aid distributed under Jokowi's administration.

Nine months after the presidential election, Indonesia held elections for governors, mayors, and regents. The use of material and money to attract voters was reportedly used by leader candidates, indicated by 130 money politics cases identified by Bawaslu (General Election Supervisory Agency) and society (Nefi, 2024). Why are aid and money attractive to voters? We could answer this question by understanding how people with scarcity think about resources.

Shah, Mullainathan, and Shafir (2012) examined how scarcity affects decision-making, showing that individuals with limited resources focus more on ready problem solvers and tend to neglect long-term consequences. Hungry individuals will eat anything available though they are aware of the bad effects of food on health. Homeless collecting food from trash cans is an example of such a decision. The health risk is ignored for the pressing hunger they are dealing with. Another experiment by Shah, Shafir, and Mullainnathan (2015) confirmed that lower-income individuals think with trade-offs. Though the study discusses a broader scope, including scarcity of time and food, it explains the decision-making of people with limited money/material very well. Those with economic pressure tend to take material/cash without deep thoughts of its long-term consequences which can be extremely severe. This explains why many low-income individuals take easy loans with a high interest rate (many are about 20% interest). When they do not have enough supplies in their kitchen or less cash for their children, they choose the loan, while future consequences coming from the strangling interest are ruled out. Conversely, higher-income individuals have more freedom to think about long-term impacts as they do not face exigent problems at the current time.

Bansos, which offers household supplies and cash, works with this mechanism: offering a quick solution for the urgent needs of families with low economic capability. For many Indonesians struggling with daily needs and jobs, Bansos can be very valuable and affect their view towards a leader candidate associated with the Bansos giver, in the Indonesian case is Jokowi. His reputation as a “generous” leader for prior COVID-19 support, in which people obtained cash in a tough situation, has also potentially convinced voters to support him in the election. Despite the awareness of the government's responsibility to tackle the economic burden during the pandemic, people have associated the relief with Jokowi. They would choose to vote for someone who saved them during the COVID-19 outbreak rather than ones who have not contributed with tangible assistance.

The free lunch program from Prabowo-Gibran can affect people of lower socioeconomic status in a similar way. They see it as a solution to their financial burden. They can cut a significant amount of children's pin money when schools provide lunch.  However, scarcity theory is one out of several others explaining the behavior of low-income individuals. Broader than that, rational choice, bounded rationality, political view, and naturalistic decision-making can also explain their political choice.                            

References

Kartika, M. (2024, April 05). Empat menteri respons soal penyaluran Bansos. MKRI.  Retrieved December 21, 2024, from https://www.mkri.id/index.php?page=web.Berita&id=20201

Nefi, A. (2024, November 28). Bawaslu kaji 130 laporan dugaan politik uang selama masa tenang Pilkada dan pemungutan suara. Tempo. Retrieved December 21, 2024, from https://www.tempo.co/politik/bawaslu-kaji-130-laporan-dugaan-politik-uang-selama-masa-tenang-pilkada-dan-pemungutan-suara--1174239

Shah, A. K., Mullainathan, S., & Shafir, E. (2012). Some consequences of having too little. Science, 338(6107), 682–685. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1222426

 Shah, A. K., Shafir, E., & Mullainathan, S. (2015). Scarcity Frames Value. Psychological Science, 26(4), 402-412. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614563958