Introduction

The relationship between social assistance programs and electoral outcomes has gathered significant attention in both academic and policy circles, especially in the last decade. Social assistance programs, designed to support vulnerable populations, often carry political implications, particularly in developing democracies where incumbent governments may leverage these programs to secure voter loyalty. In Georgia, one of the largest components of social assistance is the targeted living allowance program, which, unlike other types of social assistance – such as those for individuals with special needs, internally displaced people, or elderly population –relies on assessing the beneficiaries’ poverty levels through proxy means testing (PMT). This makes subsistence allowance benefits vulnerable to biased, favorable selection by those in power. Allegations exist that the government may have strategically used this program, including increasing the number of beneficiaries in the lead-up to elections to secure votes or threatening existing beneficiaries with the withdrawal of their assistance based on their disclosed political preferences (Shubladze (2024); Japaridze (2023); Social Justice Center (2024)).

This policy brief explores the impact of social assistance on electoral outcomes in Georgia, specifically assessing whether increases in the number of targeted subsistence allowance beneficiaries during the 2020-2024 period influenced the votes received by the incumbent party in the 2024 parliamentary elections.

This analysis is especially important given the recent developments in Georgia’s political landscape. The 2024 parliamentary elections marked a critical juncture, with the Georgian Dream claiming to have secured 53.93 percent of the votes. Concerns over the fairness and transparency of the elections have been widespread. The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s (OSCE) Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) reported systematic election irregularities, including pressure on voters, media bias, unequal campaign conditions, and election day practices that compromised the ability of some voters – including public sector employees and recipients of social assistance – to cast their ballots without fear of retribution.

Our regression analysis documents a positive relationship between the number of living allowance beneficiaries and the votes garnered by the incumbent party across Georgian municipalities, raising further concerns about the integrity of the electoral process, and the allocation of state funds.