Hot on HuffPost:

See More Stories

Poverty Rx: Cash Payments Are Best Way to Help Poor, Study Finds

5 years ago
  0 Comments Say Something  »
Text Size
How do we end world poverty? Boy, that's a head-scratcher. It's right up there with "Does God exist?" and "What's the meaning of life?"

And here's a radical answer: Give the poor some money. And don't tell them what to do with it. Sounds crazy, right?

Not according to three scholars in the United Kingdom. In a new study titled "Just Give Money to the Poor," Joseph Hanlon, Armando Barrientos and David Hulme argue that giving small amounts of cash on a regular basis to poor people may actually be the most effective way to lift developing countries out of poverty.

The scholars ground their argument in reams of empirical data gathered from cash transfer programs across the developing world. They cite programs like India's National Employment Guarantee Act, which provides 100 days of employment in every financial year to adult members of any rural household willing to perform unskilled manual "public works" at the statutory minimum wage. Or Brazil's Bolsa Família program, which provides financial aid to indigent Brazilian families on the condition that their children attend school and are vaccinated.

According to the authors, small transfers of this sort help provide access to economic opportunities and vital health and education services for very poor households. And they aren't distributed randomly; rather, the programs carefully select and monitor recipients to ensure that they are well informed about objectives, and administrators also track outcomes. And so far, at least, they appear to be working.

So what makes these programs different or "revolutionary" (the subtitle of the book is "The Development Revolution From the Global South")? For starters, unlike a lot of contemporary development assistance, which comes in the form of "projects," these programs all come in the form of money.

So you don't have aid donors -- whether it's individuals, like Bill Gates; international non-governmental organizations, like Oxfam; or government agencies, like USAID -- deciding that X region in Ethiopia needs a new dam or Y municipality in Mexico should have a new school (and then financing it). Instead, the poor people in these regions receive a chunk of money and then decide where to invest it themselves. This frees poor people from the endless summits, red tape and reporting requirements that so often clog up the corridors of the international development industry.

Which brings us to the second crucial difference: local input. Projects like those listed above were generated from the ideas of poor people themselves. They are very much premised on the notion that poor people can be trusted to figure out what's best for them and to use the money prudently to achieve those ends. And it appears that they do. In this way -- and much like the whole school voucher movement in the United States -- there's a very strong anti-paternalism thread running through this line of development thinking. This is "bottom up" development of the sort long championed by former World Bank economist-turned-foreign-aid-basher-in-chief William Easterly. Easterly has long argued that the international aid community needed to shift from being a "planner" of development projects (which often fall prey to corruption or misuse) to a "searcher" of worthy, locally generated, well-monitored development opportunities.

There are unquestionably some problems with this method of assistance. For starters, there are debates within the development community over things like particularism vs. universality. Do you carefully target the recipients of these programs among the very poor -- which may be more economically efficient -- or do you extend them to wide swaths of the population, which may be more politically popular but also more expensive?

Another debate swirls around conditionality. Do you give cash to poor people and expect nothing in return? Or do you -- as in Brazil's Bolsa Familia program -- ask recipients to send their children to school or get a vaccination in exchange for the money? So far, at least, it isn't clear that imposing conditions actually improves outcomes.

Then there's the question of public goods. Sure, local entrepreneurs might be best positioned to decide whether to invest their cash transfer in building a dam or buying a sack of fertilizer. But what about classic public goods, like education and health care? Who's supplying those? As Duncan Green, head researcher for Oxfam Great Britain, points out on his blog, cash transfers increase demand for things like schools and hospitals, but that can be pointless if their quantity or quality does not respond in turn. In other words: don't you still need a reasonably strong state to respond to this increased human capacity at the local level?

Which brings us to corruption. I was listening to an interview with David Hulme about this book on the BBC and was struck by the inordinate faith he has in developing country governments -- national, state and local -- to implement these programs in a responsible way. Because at the end of the day, even if the poor are receiving cash transfers and deciding how to spend that money, the agency handing out the cash and checking up to see that it's being used wisely is a governmental one. Hulme's response was that -- to the extent that cash transfers are financed through taxes (as is the goal in the medium to long term) -- taxpayers will have a strong incentive to monitor carefully what happens to government revenues. Maybe so, but last I checked (and I think I've got world-renowned economist Paul Collier on my side), the thing developing countries are most short on these days are accountants -- which is a proxy for the sort of transparency and accountability that cash transfers require.

Finally, and most interesting to me, anyway, is the question raised by Oxfam's Duncan Green about the politics of these programs. He wants to know such things as: Why do they start? How do they spread? And, crucially, how do you prevent them from tipping over into just another form of patronage?

Hopefully, some enterprising, newly minted Ph.D.s are giving some thought to these more fundamentally political questions about state capacity and the potential politicization of social transfers.

But this isn't just an academic question. Earlier this week, Congress voted to cut nearly $4 billion in aid to Afghanistan after it was discovered that large amounts of cash were never reaching their intended recipients. Rather, the money was being flown out of Kabul by (presumably) corrupt allies of the Karzai government.

So we've all got a stake in figuring this out . . . and quickly. I recently read that USAID has opened up a policy planning shop to enable the agency to think more strategically. Maybe this question of how best to deliver foreign aid ought to figure high on its to-do list.

Follow Delia
on Twitter.

Our New Approach to Comments

In an effort to encourage the same level of civil dialogue among Politics Daily’s readers that we expect of our writers – a “civilogue,” to use the term coined by PD’s Jeffrey Weiss – we are requiring commenters to use their AOL or AIM screen names to submit a comment, and we are reading all comments before publishing them. Personal attacks (on writers, other readers, Nancy Pelosi, George W. Bush, or anyone at all) and comments that are not productive additions to the conversation will not be published, period, to make room for a discussion among those with ideas to kick around. Please read our Help and Feedback section for more info.

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum Comment Moderation Enabled. Your comment will appear after it is cleared by an editor.


Filter by:

According to FOX NEWS and other republicans the best way to help people is to give MORE HUGE TAX CUTS TO THE RICH.

July 06 2010 at 1:53 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

The USA is having enough Money problems Thanks to The Politicians IN DC. We are not the Savior of the world.

July 06 2010 at 12:57 PM Report abuse +3 rate up rate down Reply

Give a man a fish, he will be hungry again. Teach a man to fish, he will be able to take care of himself.

July 05 2010 at 10:22 PM Report abuse +4 rate up rate down Reply

We all know that if you don't earn your living, the appreciation factor just isnt there.

July 05 2010 at 10:21 PM Report abuse +5 rate up rate down Reply

Decent people feel better, when they can earn their income, and do not want anyone to give them anything. Let people do what they can to earn what they get, no matter the age. If I could not find a job, I would make a job. Intellient people think outside the box. Give people a daily wage o buy food etc., but everyone should work, in order to eat, and have shelter. We should not overcharge the poor, and let the prices go along with their income.

July 05 2010 at 7:10 PM Report abuse +5 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to nice1024805's comment

IF I COULD not find a job I would make a job GREAT I would do the same.

July 06 2010 at 1:01 PM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply

This study is so full of holes. These schemes never work in the long term. These people have no desire to change. Giving money carte blanche is absolutely useless. It just keeps them enslaved. Look at our own welfare population. It's not shrinking, it is actually growing. What these people need is to be set free to do what they must to survive and it may be that some of these society's disappear. Sounds harsh, but when does it stop?

July 05 2010 at 6:17 PM Report abuse +3 rate up rate down Reply

Yes a check for the poor solves everything. The United States
has been giving money to the poor since at least LBJ's great
society. It just does not work. Education is the key to
helping the poor. Community service which is not required
in the United States to obtain a welfare check.

July 05 2010 at 5:59 PM Report abuse +6 rate up rate down Reply

Question: Where is the money coming from? Governments earn no money, they only take money from people who earn it. How long do these governments think they can continue to enslave workers and steal there money and give it to people that don't work. This whole Robin-hood fallacy of socialism is collapsing. Soon it will be every man for himself.

July 05 2010 at 4:53 PM Report abuse +5 rate up rate down Reply

If you give money to people who are not used to managing it, it will be gone in less than 6 months.
They will be angry it is gone and want more. Great solution.

July 05 2010 at 2:43 PM Report abuse +4 rate up rate down Reply
dc walker

It was the knowledge of industry, art and science that Europeans brought to the US with their money, know how, domestic animals, factories, etc. Open those poor countries to industry and education and they will help themselves.

July 05 2010 at 1:30 PM Report abuse +4 rate up rate down Reply

Follow Politics Daily

  • Comics
Featuring political comics by Robert and Donna TrussellMore>>
  • Woman UP Video
politics daily videos
Weekly Videos
Woman Up, Politics Daily's Online Sunday ShowMore»
politics daily videos
TV Appearances
Showcasing appearances by Politics Daily staff and contributors.More>>