Political money as “happy money”: a study of spending patterns and non-economic meanings of vote buying money for Indonesian voters

Purpose This study aims to test two competing theoretical predictions about vote buying money: whether it functions as economic compensation (hence spent on basic needs) or as a social gift signaling candidate generosity (hence spent on enjoyment and social needs). By investigating spending patterns and meanings attached to the money, the study adjudicates between transactional and social logics of vote buying. Design/methodology/approach This qualitative phenomenological study collected data from January to March 2025 via in-depth interviews with 70 voters who received vote buying money in Java, Indonesia, plus brief observations and documentation. Data analysis used six-phase thematic analysis. For reliability, a second coder analyzed 20% of transcripts (14 randomly selected), achieving 87% agreement. Findings The study finds three main results supporting the social-gift model over the economic-compensation model. First, participants tended not to save the money. Second, most spent most or all on enjoyment and social needs. Third, participants consistently viewed vote buying money as “bonus money,” qualitatively different from regular “income money.” Originality/value This study shifts the unit of analysis from whether money changes votes to what money reveals about the exchange. Testing competing economic and sociological predictions, we find spending patterns favor a social-gift interpretation over a transactional-compensation one. Contrary to vote-buying literature, recipients treat the money as “happy money” for enjoyment and social ties, not basic needs – even when poor. This challenges rational-choice models and has direct implications for counter-money-politics interventions addressing social motivations.