a better way to combat poverty?
"If well done, these conditional cash-transfer schemes, as they are called, have several advantages over traditional social spending. Unlike public pensions or social insurance (which mainly benefit the better-off) or indiscriminate subsidies, they target the poor. The aim is both to help them and to break the cycle of poverty by giving their children a better chance to escape it. The money is normally paid to women (who spend it better than men). Payments—the equivalent of $50-70 a month—are high enough to make a difference but low enough not to distort labour markets by removing the incentive to work. The fiscal cost is fairly modest."
Comments are invited. The complete article is available here
Comments are invited. The complete article is available here
posted by Adi Oso-Groot Finch at 4:07 pm
2 Comments:
dada, one small problem.. looking at it from where our old kaam-wali bai will look at it... is direct cash transfer is done.. dont really expect children to go to schools.. rather she would expect her nikamma husband become a drunkard, indulge in gambling, watch movies...
what i am trying to say is that there are some out model circumstances, and if this is a true representaion of the population then we have created a fresh problem in place of the old one...
lets think more deeply
@anon: ofcourse, the drunkard husband problem is always there. However, do not expect a whole country to go crazy and do something like this without substantial analysis.
It is generally assumed, and i believe analytically proven, that women (atleast in lower economic segments) are better spenders & savers of money than men. It is based on this very premise that many rural credit schemes lend only to women (or group of women) and not to men.
Post a Comment
<< Home