Announcements related to unconditional cash transfers for women have now become par for the course before every state elections. Currently, about 14 states in the country have schemes of this nature and the number is growing. While the idea of cash transfers, a universal basic income (UBI), has come up several times over the last two decades it is only in the last few years that we have seen such large-scale interventions that come close to the concept of a UBI. The amounts are of course too low to match the requirements of ‘basic income’ and the coverage is not universal, but conceptually they are “UBI-like”.These schemes are different from conditional cash transfers such as the Janani Suraksha Yojana (JSY) which is a cash benefit given to women provided they have an institutional delivery or old-style social security related transfers such as pensions for the aged, maternity benefits and so on. The latter particularly, are social security benefits usually received through formal employment, which are replaced with state-provided cash benefits for a large working population in the informal sector that does not get any of these benefits through employment. These, therefore, are based in the framework of rights.The 16th Finance Commission report classifies these as large-group cash transfers, that “consists of subsidies that are not directed to a specific economic or social sector” and estimate that in 2025-26 BE around Rs 1.96 lakh crores were allocated for these schemes.For perspective, the proposed Budget including state and union government shares for the newly enacted Viksit Bharat – Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (VB-GRAM G) Act (in place of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) according to the financial memorandum presented in the Bill was around Rs 1.6 lakh crores. The Finance Commission report estimates that share of social security in total unconditional transfers reduced from 60% in 2018-19 to 38% in 2025-25 (BE), while that of large-group cash transfers increased from 16% to 47% during this period (the remaining being agriculture, which reduced from 24% to 15%).The recent UBI-like schemes have mostly been Election-linked announcements, they target women beneficiaries and are always very clear about what objectives they aim to fulfill. Political parties in all four major states that are going into Elections in 2026 have highlighted such schemes – either new or expansion of existing ones. In Tamil Nadu, chief minister M.K. Stalin has announced that the transfer under the Kalaignar Magalir Urumai Thittam (KMUT) scheme of Rs 1,000 a month will be frontloaded for the three months of February, March and April along with an additional Rs 2,000 summer special allowance, thereby transferring a sum of Rs 5,000 into the bank accounts of the scheme’s 1.3 crore beneficiaries (~40% of women voters in the State).He has further announced that should his party win Elections and come back to power, the monthly allowance will be doubled to Rs 2,000. The All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK), the main opposition party in the state, while criticising this move and alleging voter-bribery, has also promised in their manifesto a scheme of providing Rs 2,000 per month to the woman head of the household, for all households holding ration cards.Earlier this year, Himanta Biswa Sarma, the chief minister of Assam made a similar move by giving a ‘Bihu gift’ of Rs 3,000 along with frontloading payments for January to April (Rs 1,250 a month), giving a total of Rs 8,000 as a one-time transfer to 37 lakh women in the state.Pinarayi Vijayan in Kerala recently launched the Sthree Suraksha scheme giving Rs 1,000 monthly to over 10 lakh women. In the state budget in early February, the West Bengal government increased by Rs 500 the amount given under the Lakshmir Bhandar scheme to around 2.4 lakh women in the state (a cash transfer of Rs 1,000 to Rs 1,200 a month to all women enrolled in the state health insurance scheme, Swasthya Sathi).Whether accurate or not, since the Maharashtra elections in 2024 where the government deposited the first installment under the Ladki Bahin scheme into women’s bank accounts a month before Elections, political commentators as well as political parties have widely believed that schemes have a significant impact on which way votes are polled. The most recent state elections where once again victory of the incumbent government has been attributed to a cash transfer scheme for women has been Bihar, where Rs 10,000 was given to women SHG (Jeevika) members as seed capital to start a business.A positive view of these schemes locate them within the discussion around wages for housework and recognition for women’s unpaid domestic and care labour. The potential of these schemes to improve women’s bargaining power and status within the household is highlighted. Whether wages for housework is the most appropriate intervention towards recognising women’s unpaid domestic and care work is an old debate in feminist economics literature.Proponents argue that for recognition and remuneration are critical while others caution that such transfers could result in further reinforcing the gender division of labour. Reducing domestic and care works through social infrastructure and public services along with redistributing the work within the household and community are emphasised by both. In the current context in India, hardly any of the pronouncements by the political leaders introducing these transfers, barring a few exceptions, have addressed these issues. For the schemes to be truly gender transformative, the messaging that goes along with the scheme along with what the ecosystem of gender-sensitive interventions and services in the state will have to be closely looked at.Discussion on these schemes has mostly been limited to their role in swaying electoral outcomes. The propriety of such announcements and transfers by ruling parties, on the eve of elections has been rightly questioned. There is also concern expressed regarding the increasing fiscal burden of these schemes. While these are valid, given the ubiquitous spread of these schemes, deeper understanding and analysis on their nature, scope, impact and long-term implications for the welfare landscape in India is much warranted.Few evaluation studies exist and they broadly show that the cash is mostly used for essential expenditures such as food and health, nutritional intakes improve in some cases and women’s say in household decision making as well as financial inclusion among women improved in certain instances. Labour market outcomes have not changed, nor has it led to wide discussions on recognition of women’s unpaid work or equitable distribution of domestic and care work. While there have been some worthy benefits for the recipients, there have been no systematic assessments of comparing outcomes from these schemes with in-kind transfers or delivery of public services.Fiscal considerations aside, it is quite obvious that these schemes stem from the felt need of the political class to compensate such large sections of the voter base in some manner. What are they compensating them for – the failure of the economy in creating decent jobs especially for women, low and sticky incomes and wages in general, poor quality and access of public services for education and health?The moot question is whether these cash transfers will have any impact on these outcomes or for how long they can keep disillusionment at bay. Generation of employment and increase in wages raise larger questions on the macroeconomic model of growth and development where we are betting on the rich to create wealth, jobs and demand. At the same time, there is the danger that expansion of such schemes will divert funds away from the delivery of basic public services the budgetary burden of which is already straining the budgets of fiscally stressed state governments. How such a shift would impact human development outcomes, along with what this shift in the politics of welfare means for democracy at large needs to be interrogated.Dipa Sinha is a development economist.