Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.What’s the most effective way to help the poor? With benefits-in-kind, such as food vouchers and housing benefits? Or cash? And if we give cash should it be a little bit at a time or a lump sum?
Conventional economic logic says cash transfers are better. Recipients, knowing their own needs better than any central planner, spend the resources in ways that more fully enhance their personal welfare. There are lower administration costs from cash transfers. And lump sums enable recipients to plan ahead.
This isn’t a left-right dividing line in the economics profession. In 1962, Ronald Reagan’s adviser Milton Friedman proposed abolishing all of America’s benefit-in-kind welfare programmes and replacing them with a single basic cash transfer.
Some evidence from the developing world suggests paying families international aid in cash has decent results. In Africa, families have tended to use the lump sums for agricultural investment.
So why don’t we see more of it? The answer is political. Taxpayers and the media don’t like no-strings transfers to the hard-up. The assumption is that it will be squandered. While we don’t like the idea of poor people starving, we also cling to the old categories of the “deserving” and “undeserving” poor.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments