Nicole flew in from Colombia (usually Cali) this weekend, thus compelling me to trek up to my golden city. I only get to see her maybe once or twice a year, so the rare occasions she emerges from the west coast, I always try to meet up and take her to places that demonstrate DC's superiority over Sacramento. The triumph from this weekend was hearing her admit that she would probably be better suited in a city like DC (YES! MOVE TO THE EAST COAST!). I'll keep adding to that pressure...
Lots of good things happened:
Last note/nerdy thoughts:
I read this article that a friend had posted on facebook and spent a good deal of time thinking about it, as I was pleasantly surprised that mainstream media was covering my area of research! People never know what to do when I tell them that I am a grad student in public policy. What is public policy, exactly? So does that mean you want to be a politician when you're finished? The first question doesn't phase or offend me - always warrants some explanation, but the second question necessitates a lecture about the differences between research in political science and policy, and politics. My policy area of study is focused on poverty alleviation and social programming in developing countries - specifically, within sub-Saharan Africa. Ok, that being said, my thoughts about the article:
Really happy to see mainstream media talk about cash transfers! It is a poverty alleviation instrument that is quite hot in my field, but it carries a negative connotation as the domestic form "welfare" has been considered "handouts", anti-meritous, perpetuating a system of dependency on the state...
Goldstein's article is posing the fundamental question - should we give the poor money without monitoring what they might do with it? Is it crazy to do that? This a basic question that we grapple with in development and policy of every kind. Policy instruments are designed to induce specific behaviors; for instance, if program designers want to encourage consumption or spending of certain kinds - offering subsidies is an excellent incentive. Giving cash is quite political and I applaud Goldstein for bringing this domestically divisive topic up.
The danger with cash is that we don't always know what the recipient will do with it. We don't want to be shelling out our tax money to subsidize the poor's spending on non-necessities (if we're generous enough to want to help the poor survive in the first place). Development researchers are always concerned about the paternalism hidden behind good intentions - on one hand, we want to do right by the underserved, but sometimes we don't trust them to make the right choices for themselves. Hence, why we have subsidies or in-kind benefit schemes. Still, economic theory tells us that cash is fluid and flexible enough to allow recipients to choose how best to spend their resources in a way that promotes the most welfare they could possibly attain.
I was disappointed with Goldstein's misleading use of the term "conditional" and its discussion in the article. Goldstein conflates "conditionality" as it is actually referred to in development. His article is primarily concerned about whether we should give cash as a policy, not fully knowing what the poor will do with the money. Therefore, he talks about cash transfers of various kinds and their successes - the new "start-up" GiveDirectly, as opposed to the huge, institutionalized Opportunidades in Mexico.
But actually, conditionality's formal definition pertains to whether program beneficiaries must comply with program benefits (send their children to school for a minimum number of days, get health check ups or take nutritional supplements, etc.) in order to receive the cash. He compares the unconditional GiveDirectly in the same category as the conditional Opportunidades and it just is not the same type of program. Opportunidades does not give free cash out to families without compliance of rules built into the program. There is a huge ideological division among practitioners and researchers about conditionality and whether it is necessary, ethical, or paternalistic. (Imposing conditions requires extra programmatic resources to make sure conditions are met.) Goldstein is incorrectly using the word "conditional" and any lay man will walk into a verbal-intellectual landmine if they take Goldstein's reductions of "conditionality" as the whole of the debate.
So in answer to Goldestein's initial question (the one he answers himself) - no, it is not crazy to give the poor money without monitoring their spending (his definition of “unconditionally”). Because, first, to my knowledge, there are NO cash transfer programs that monitor how the poor actually use the money. There are evaluations that ask about expenditures, of course, but this is after the money's been spent and usually not designed to deter individuals from their natural spending patterns. The more appropriate question he should have tried to pose is, what happens when we give the poor money?
My response is in agreement with what he discusses - we do see investments in human capital development and this has been widely confirmed by rigorous evaluations and the cash transfer literature, including our own studies from UNC. However, it depends on the population and their preferences. Another finer point is that conditionality (the actual definition) will influence "take-up" outcomes related to the conditions. That is, if the program expands successfully, of course we would see improvements in attendance/nutrition if the program was conditional - because the program was designed to give money only when recipients followed the rules. For Goldstein to cite the successes - "researchers found that children in the cash program were more likely to stay in school, families were less likely to get sick and people ate a more healthful diet" - he is over-attributing the conditional program's success. The first two are outcomes related to conditions built explicitly into the program. The third outcome could be considered a true success of the program - that people actually invested money into buying better food when they weren't required to.
Just my two cents. Nerd rant done.
Lots of good things happened:
- Hanging out with Nicole (duh), even if it meant passing out in her hotel bed, per my usual hanging out stance, haha.
- Got to catch up with my lovely Wang family. Unfortunately, they got rained on during their long-anticipated camping trip and ended up driving back from the Shenandoah at 2 am. :( Lucky for me, I got to catch them in between their weekend activities and exhaustion from the drive back home. Many good conversations about the adventures we've had since seeing each other (brother's wedding, Ghana, Oiselle, apartment situation, Japan-Taiwan, family, running, teaching, etc.)
- Saw Judi, who doesn't look any different than when we last saw each other in college, about 7 years ago!, and got to meet her new fiancée. Funny guy and a good match for Judi. :)
- Got my Asian food fixings: pho (x2), Thai green curry, ramen and sashimi, and KBBQ! Sigh. My stomach was super happy.
- Met up with a few of the +Oiselle DC flock for a run in the rain around the Mall! This was my first meeting with any of the Volée team, so it was great to chat with them. We ran an easy 5 miles around some of the museums, near the Washington Monument, and around the Capitol. I think my body was still sleepy and unwilling to go any faster, but Colleen ran to meet us from Arlington having put in a solid 12 miles before we even met at 9 am (thus making even the most devoted runners look like underachievers), haha. Turns out, we are all newcomers to the Volée flock and we're all signed up for marathons in the coming months! After we departed, I regretted not chatting with them some more post-run, but hopefully there'll be more trips and runs together. Thanks for a fantastic time, birds!
 |
| Left to right: Stephanie, moi, Colleen. Ladies brought the sunshine to a gloomy, rainy run! Photo credit to Colleen, nice work! |
Last note/nerdy thoughts:
I read this article that a friend had posted on facebook and spent a good deal of time thinking about it, as I was pleasantly surprised that mainstream media was covering my area of research! People never know what to do when I tell them that I am a grad student in public policy. What is public policy, exactly? So does that mean you want to be a politician when you're finished? The first question doesn't phase or offend me - always warrants some explanation, but the second question necessitates a lecture about the differences between research in political science and policy, and politics. My policy area of study is focused on poverty alleviation and social programming in developing countries - specifically, within sub-Saharan Africa. Ok, that being said, my thoughts about the article:
Really happy to see mainstream media talk about cash transfers! It is a poverty alleviation instrument that is quite hot in my field, but it carries a negative connotation as the domestic form "welfare" has been considered "handouts", anti-meritous, perpetuating a system of dependency on the state...
Goldstein's article is posing the fundamental question - should we give the poor money without monitoring what they might do with it? Is it crazy to do that? This a basic question that we grapple with in development and policy of every kind. Policy instruments are designed to induce specific behaviors; for instance, if program designers want to encourage consumption or spending of certain kinds - offering subsidies is an excellent incentive. Giving cash is quite political and I applaud Goldstein for bringing this domestically divisive topic up.
The danger with cash is that we don't always know what the recipient will do with it. We don't want to be shelling out our tax money to subsidize the poor's spending on non-necessities (if we're generous enough to want to help the poor survive in the first place). Development researchers are always concerned about the paternalism hidden behind good intentions - on one hand, we want to do right by the underserved, but sometimes we don't trust them to make the right choices for themselves. Hence, why we have subsidies or in-kind benefit schemes. Still, economic theory tells us that cash is fluid and flexible enough to allow recipients to choose how best to spend their resources in a way that promotes the most welfare they could possibly attain.
I was disappointed with Goldstein's misleading use of the term "conditional" and its discussion in the article. Goldstein conflates "conditionality" as it is actually referred to in development. His article is primarily concerned about whether we should give cash as a policy, not fully knowing what the poor will do with the money. Therefore, he talks about cash transfers of various kinds and their successes - the new "start-up" GiveDirectly, as opposed to the huge, institutionalized Opportunidades in Mexico.
But actually, conditionality's formal definition pertains to whether program beneficiaries must comply with program benefits (send their children to school for a minimum number of days, get health check ups or take nutritional supplements, etc.) in order to receive the cash. He compares the unconditional GiveDirectly in the same category as the conditional Opportunidades and it just is not the same type of program. Opportunidades does not give free cash out to families without compliance of rules built into the program. There is a huge ideological division among practitioners and researchers about conditionality and whether it is necessary, ethical, or paternalistic. (Imposing conditions requires extra programmatic resources to make sure conditions are met.) Goldstein is incorrectly using the word "conditional" and any lay man will walk into a verbal-intellectual landmine if they take Goldstein's reductions of "conditionality" as the whole of the debate.
So in answer to Goldestein's initial question (the one he answers himself) - no, it is not crazy to give the poor money without monitoring their spending (his definition of “unconditionally”). Because, first, to my knowledge, there are NO cash transfer programs that monitor how the poor actually use the money. There are evaluations that ask about expenditures, of course, but this is after the money's been spent and usually not designed to deter individuals from their natural spending patterns. The more appropriate question he should have tried to pose is, what happens when we give the poor money?
My response is in agreement with what he discusses - we do see investments in human capital development and this has been widely confirmed by rigorous evaluations and the cash transfer literature, including our own studies from UNC. However, it depends on the population and their preferences. Another finer point is that conditionality (the actual definition) will influence "take-up" outcomes related to the conditions. That is, if the program expands successfully, of course we would see improvements in attendance/nutrition if the program was conditional - because the program was designed to give money only when recipients followed the rules. For Goldstein to cite the successes - "researchers found that children in the cash program were more likely to stay in school, families were less likely to get sick and people ate a more healthful diet" - he is over-attributing the conditional program's success. The first two are outcomes related to conditions built explicitly into the program. The third outcome could be considered a true success of the program - that people actually invested money into buying better food when they weren't required to.
Just my two cents. Nerd rant done.
No comments:
Post a Comment