Give and Take?: An Analysis on the Perceived Reciprocal Effects of the Tulong Panghanapbuhay sa Ating Disadvantaged or Displaced Workers (TUPAD) Program on the Voting Behavior of Its Beneficiaries in Cauayan City, Isabela
Keywords:
Reciprocity, Voting Behavior, Social assistance, TUPAD, Political EngagementAbstract
This study examines the political implications of the Tulong Panghanapbuhay sa Ating Disadvantaged/Displaced Workers (TUPAD) Program in Cauayan City, Isabela, situating it within broader debates on social assistance, political reciprocity, and welfare politics. Specifically, it investigates whether and how participation in a short-term cash-for-work program is associated with beneficiaries’ attitudes toward incumbent local officials and their reported voting support. A mixed methods design was employed, combining survey data from 218 respondents (109 TUPAD beneficiaries and 109 non-beneficiaries) with semi-structured interviews of selected beneficiaries. Descriptive statistics and independent samples t-tests were used to assess differences in attitudes, while thematic analysis was applied to qualitative data. Findings indicate that TUPAD beneficiaries report significantly more favorable attitudes toward incumbent officials compared to non-beneficiaries. Interview data further suggest that some beneficiaries express support grounded in gratitude and perceived assistance, although others attribute their political preferences to personal judgment, family influence, or perceptions of program fairness. These results point to the presence of perceived reciprocity and positive political attitudes among beneficiaries but do not establish a direct causal effect on actual voting behavior. The study highlights how social assistance programs may shape political perceptions and reported support, raising important considerations for the nonpartisan implementation of welfare programs and the protection of democratic processes.
References
Anderson, B., & Dupont, P.-L. (2020). Just deserts? Justice, deservingness and social assistance (Report). ETHOS Project. https://bpb-eu-w2.wpmucdn.com/blogs.bristol.ac.uk/dist/e/505/files/2020/05/D5.5-FInal-revised-May-2020-.pdf
Baker, W. E., & Bulkley, N. (2014). Paying it forward vs. rewarding reputation: Mechanisms of generalized reciprocity. Organization Science, 25(5), 1493–1510. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2014.0920
Boddewyn, J. J., & Buckley, P. J. (2017). Integrating social and political strategies as forms of reciprocal exchange into the analysis of corporate governance modes. British Journal of Management, 28(4), 575–588. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12243
Blau, P. M. (1964). Justice in social exchange. Sociological Inquiry, 34(2), 193–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1964.tb00583.x
Bustikova, L., & Corduneanu-Huci, C. (2017). Patronage, trust, and state capacity: The historical trajectories of clientelism. World Politics, 69(2), 277–326. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043887116000265
Callueng, C., Aruta, J. J. B. R., Antazo, B. G., & Briones-Diato, A. (2020). Measurement and antecedents of national resilience in Filipino adults during coronavirus crisis. Journal of community psychology, 48(8), 2608–2624. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.22438
Campbell, A. L. (2005). How policies make citizens: Senior political activism and the American welfare state. Princeton University Press.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. SAGE Publications
Cropanzano, R., Anthony, E. L., Daniels, S. R., & Hall, A. V. (2017). Social exchange theory: A critical review with theoretical remedies. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 479–516. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2015.0099
Dharma, F., Syakhroza, A., & Martani, D. (2022). Does the social assistance budget realization affect incumbents’ votes? (Study in Indonesia local election). International Journal of Professional Business Review, 7(6), Article e0636. https://doi.org/10.26668/businessreview/2022.v7i6.636
Edeer, M. (2023). Perceptions on social assistance dependency and voting behavior [Master's thesis, Sabancı University]. Sabancı University Research Database. https://research.sabanciuniv.edu/id/eprint/48745/1/Merve_Edeer_.pdf
Graham, V. L., Sadie, Y., & Patel, L. (2016). Social grants, food parcels and voting behaviour: A case study of three South African communities. Transformation: Critical Perspectives on Southern Africa, 91(1), 106–135. https://doi.org/10.1353/trn.2016.0020
Ciptono, Ishomuddin, Kartono, R., & Ibrahim, J. T. (2021). Social exchange between candidate head of village with voters in Tuban Regency, East Java, Indonesia. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Analysis, 4(12), 1847–1855. https://doi.org/10.47191/ijmra/v4-i12-12
Lawson, C., & Greene, K. F. (2014). Making clientelism work: How norms of reciprocity increase voter compliance. Comparative Politics, 47(1), 61–85. https://doi.org/10.5129/001041514813623173
Lee, K. W., & Hwang, M. (2016). Conditional cash transfer against child labor: Indonesia Program Keluarga Harapan. Asia Pacific Education Review, 17(3), 391–401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-016-9436-7
Lee, Y. G., Hales, E., & Kelley, H. H. (2023). Financial behaviors, government assistance, and financial satisfaction. Social Indicators Research, 166(1), 85–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-022-03051-z
Leeuw, F. L. (2017). The carrot: Subsidies as a tool of government—theory and practice. In M.-L. Bemelmans-Videc, R. C. Rist, & E. Vedung (Eds.), Carrots, sticks and sermons: Policy instruments and their evaluation (pp. 77–102). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315081748 (Original work published 1998)
Maalihan, J. P. A., & Conchada, M. I. P. (2022, July 6–8). Making TUPAD happen: An impact evaluation study on Tulong Pangkabuhayan sa Ating Disadvantaged Workers Program [Paper presentation]. DLSU Research Congress 2022, De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines. https://old.dlsu.edu.ph/wp-content/uploads/pdf/conferences/research-congress-proceedings/2022/SEP-03.pdf
Maningas, S. E. C. (2023). Pangakong Tupad: Assessing the impacts of the Tulong Panghanapbuhay sa Ating Disadvantaged/Displaced Workers (TUPAD) program in Manila City [Bachelor’s thesis, University of the Philippines Manila]. UPM CAS Institutional Repository. http://dspace.cas.upm.edu.ph:8080/xmlui/handle/123456789/2391
McGann, A. (2016). Voting choice and rational choice. In E. Hannah (ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.79
Naeem, M., Ozuem, W., Howell, K., & Ranfagni, S. (2023). A step-by-step process of thematic analysis to develop a conceptual model in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231205789
Özel, I. D., & Yıldırım, K. (2019). Political consequences of welfare regimes: Social assistance and support for presidentialism in Turkey. South European Society and Politics, 24(4), 485–511. https://doi.org/10.1080/13608746.2019.1702812
Pradhanawati, A., Tawakkal, G. T. I., & Garner, A. D. (2019). Voting their conscience: Poverty, education, social pressure and vote buying in Indonesia. Journal of East Asian Studies, 19(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/jea.2018.27
Przybylska, J. (2021). Deservingness in social policy. The concept, criteria and (un)deserving groups. Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu, 65(2). https://doi.org/10.15611/pn.2021.2.09
Roosma, F., van Oorschot, W., & Gelissen, J. (2016). The Achilles’ heel of welfare state legitimacy: perceptions of overuse and underuse of social benefits in Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, 23(2), 177–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2015.1031157
Seide, L. (2014). Voter Behavior and Government Performance: Theory and Empirical Application in Sub-Saharan Africa [Doctoral dissertation, Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel]. MACAU - Kiel University Open Access Repository. https://macau.uni-kiel.de/servlets/MCRFileNodeServlet/dissertation_derivate_00005994/Dissertation_Laura_Seide.pdf
Şener, T., Balku, Y., Alkan, Y. S., Doru, S., Okudan Dernek, K., & Zenginoğlu, S. (2023). The socio-psychological factors affecting the voting behaviour of the postgraduate politics students: a Q-methodology study. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1218104. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1218104
Singh, S. (2020). The role of psychological factors on voting behavior. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention (IJHSSI), 9(8), 1-2. https://doi.org/10.35629/7722-0908010102
Strupat, C., & Rukundo, E. N. (2022). The impact of social assistance programmes in a pandemic: Evidence from Kenya (ZEF Discussion Papers on Development Policy No. 316). University of Bonn, Center for Development Research (ZEF). https://hdl.handle.net/10419/268092
Tobias, J. E., Sumarto, S., & Moody, H. (2014). Assessing the political impacts of a conditional cash transfer: Evidence from a randomized policy experiment in Indonesia (SMERU Working Paper). The SMERU Research Institute. https://smeru.or.id/sites/default/files/publication/politicalimpactscct.pdf.
Watson, S. (2015). Does Welfare Conditionality Reduce Democratic Participation? Comparative Political Studies, 48(5), 645-686. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414014556043
Zulueta, F. M., & Costales, N. E. B. (2003). Methods of research, thesis-writing and applied statistics. National Book Store.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution–NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0).
