A multifaceted program causes lasting progress for the very poor

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/348/6236/1260799.full

by ALee • 11 years ago

56 9 11 years ago

mkagenius• 11 years ago

Its interesting to see the savings increase in the figure in the article [1]. Even though they are utterly poor they do not spend on themselves instead they save for future.

[1] http://www.sciencemag.org/content/348/6236/1260799/F1.large....

RobertoG• 11 years ago

This kind of intervention probably has strong network effects. It would be interesting to do this for everybody in a big area. Maybe in a full country and see what happens?

Prof. Esther Duflo (one of the authors and a MIT Professor) should start a kickstart project or something.

Perhaps the Internet can finance the end of poverty.

alwaysinshade• 11 years ago

Following identification of the beneficiary households through a participatory process in the village, the six activities are:

1. Productive asset transfer: a one-time transfer of a productive asset

2. Consumption support: a regular transfer of food or cash for a few months to about a year (11)

3. Technical skills training on managing the particular productive assets

4. High-frequency home visits

5. Savings: access to a savings account and in some instances a deposit collection service and/or mandatory savings

6. Some health education, basic health services, and/or life-skills training

So let's translate what's happening. Starting with one, we have a tool or array of tools that can help someone be productive. Let's call it a paint brush and paint. At two we have something that provides essentials until the tool-person-couple is making enough money to support themselves - social security/low income supplementation. Three, they're taught how to use the asset effectively - basic job training. Four, make sure they're doing alright - a social worker shows up at their house. Five, a means of saving for a rainy day (which has meaning in the tradesperson world), when things go bad (not enough work for a limited period) or to increase capability or comfort down the track. Finally at six, teaching someone how to take care of themselves which means they can also take care of others.

It'd be interesting to see what would happen if we coupled #1 and #6 in countries high on the HDI with existing social welfare programs. Perhaps a computer with MS Office or cheap, fuel efficient car for #1 and cooking/cleaning/child care training for #6. Throwing money at the problem alone without making sure they have a productive capability is where things are going wrong. This could be something that scales nicely for any country.

pekk• 11 years ago

Seeing what works and tweaking direction is part of any kind of effective program. Where things are going wrong is when third parties in the peanut gallery decide it's not fair for someone else to get anything and make up wild scare stories about "welfare queens" living high on the hog on foodstamps. It has never been a problem that these programs just have too much money and are throwing it away for no reason.

kazinator• 11 years ago

So let's translate what's happening.

Allow me: "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, ...".

knodi123• 11 years ago

"teach a man to fish, and he'll be hungry for a while until he gets the hang of it. But do both, and you wind up with the best outcomes across the board."

Kluny• 11 years ago

It's great to see acknowledgement that poverty is a complex problem that requires a complex (though not complicated - an important distinction) solution.

So often commenters will thoughtlessly say things like "Just give [poor people] a bunch of money!" or "Just send them to work camps!" or "Just make sure they don't waste their money on drugs!".

Just this or that, as if this simplistic idea is enough and the rest will sort itself out. Most people have some good ideas for solving poverty, but no one idea is sufficient on its own for such a diverse problem.

random28345• 11 years ago

So often commenters will thoughtlessly say things like "Just give [poor people] a bunch of money!"

The amount of money we spend on effective social welfare programs (e.g. food stamps) added to the money spent on ineffective social welfare programs (e.g. farm subsidies) is pretty enormous. If this money, including the administration costs, were instead distributed as "helicopter money" (e.g. alaska Permanent Fund), the economic benefits and social benefits might be signifincant improved.

The original article examines a "white-glove" approach to ending poverty, this requires significant resources to train and compensate the people working for the program. I would like to the testing of the null hypothosis, an amount of cash equal to the program cost given directly to a control group.

A multifaceted program causes lasting progress for the very poor

Related Stories