Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsUnconditional handouts benefit recipients--and their neighbours too
Economists have long argued that people should give each other money rather than gifts, since it is hard to know what others truly want. Though they have failed to ruin Christmas, a study in Kenya shows how they are changing the war on poverty by encouraging cash handouts to the poor.
Of 142 countries in a database compiled by the World Bank, 70% now use unconditional cash transfers as part of their welfare programmes. About 40% have conditional payments, in which recipients must fulfil certain obligations, such as getting their children vaccinated or enrolling them in school. Brazils Bolsa Família, launched in 2003, is now the worlds biggest such scheme. It helped slash the countrys extreme-poverty rate from 9.7% to 4.3% in a decade. Chinas unconditional cash-transfer programme, dibao, boosts the incomes of 69m people, according to the World Bank, though many poor households miss out because of corruption and red tape.
Most research has found that both types of cash transfers reduce poverty, and that conditional ones can boost school attendance and improve public health. Still, some economists worry about unintended consequences. Spending on one thing means not spending on another. Grants targeted at some people might disadvantage their business competitors. And large handouts could cause inflation in isolated areas where markets are thin.
A new working paper, however, alleviates many of those concernsand goes further.* Cash grants, it seems, benefit not just the recipients, but their neighbours, too. Between 2014 and 2017 GiveDirectly, a charity, handed $1,000 to more than 10,000 randomly chosen households in rural Kenya. This amounted to around 75% of a typical local familys annual expenditure. The authors found that consumption rose by 13% for both the households that received the grants and neighbours who received nothing. Wages for the latter rose substantially, suggesting that grant recipients paid their employees more. Meanwhile local prices rose by less than 1%. The authors estimate that local gdp rose by $2.60 for every dollar granted. The comparable figure in America has been estimated as $1.50-2.
...
https://amp.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2019/11/23/unconditional-handouts-benefit-recipients-and-their-neighbours-too
Of 142 countries in a database compiled by the World Bank, 70% now use unconditional cash transfers as part of their welfare programmes. About 40% have conditional payments, in which recipients must fulfil certain obligations, such as getting their children vaccinated or enrolling them in school. Brazils Bolsa Família, launched in 2003, is now the worlds biggest such scheme. It helped slash the countrys extreme-poverty rate from 9.7% to 4.3% in a decade. Chinas unconditional cash-transfer programme, dibao, boosts the incomes of 69m people, according to the World Bank, though many poor households miss out because of corruption and red tape.
Most research has found that both types of cash transfers reduce poverty, and that conditional ones can boost school attendance and improve public health. Still, some economists worry about unintended consequences. Spending on one thing means not spending on another. Grants targeted at some people might disadvantage their business competitors. And large handouts could cause inflation in isolated areas where markets are thin.
A new working paper, however, alleviates many of those concernsand goes further.* Cash grants, it seems, benefit not just the recipients, but their neighbours, too. Between 2014 and 2017 GiveDirectly, a charity, handed $1,000 to more than 10,000 randomly chosen households in rural Kenya. This amounted to around 75% of a typical local familys annual expenditure. The authors found that consumption rose by 13% for both the households that received the grants and neighbours who received nothing. Wages for the latter rose substantially, suggesting that grant recipients paid their employees more. Meanwhile local prices rose by less than 1%. The authors estimate that local gdp rose by $2.60 for every dollar granted. The comparable figure in America has been estimated as $1.50-2.
...
https://amp.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2019/11/23/unconditional-handouts-benefit-recipients-and-their-neighbours-too
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
2 replies, 535 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (4)
ReplyReply to this post
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Unconditional handouts benefit recipients--and their neighbours too (Original Post)
redqueen
Nov 2019
OP
Wounded Bear
(58,647 posts)1. The traditional work-to-earn economy is breaking down...
Robots are taking over repetitive tasks and many hard labor jobs. That will continue and probably accelerate. All that are left are high end white collar and STEM positions, which require years of expensive training and are being flooded these days by diploma mills. Not everybody is suited for owning their own businesses and mom and pop shops continue to suffer from competition from Amazon, et al.
Some form of UBI might be inevitable. Otherwise, huge swaths of the economy will slip underground and benefit nobody but the criminal elements.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)2. We'll definitely need it.
Just a matter of time. I hope we are proactive instead of waiting for things to get worse before making needed changes.
Not sure if you've seen these documentaries - very informative though.