Luddly Neddite
Diamond Member
- Sep 14, 2011
- 63,947
- 9,980
- 2,040
Paul Ryan's New Poverty Proposal Would Have Government Micromanage Poor People's Lives | ThinkProgress
On Thursday, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) released his much-anticipated proposal for reforming the way the federal government tries to alleviate poverty. The core part of his proposal, the Opportunity Grant, would give participating states a lump sum of money rather than funding virtually all the current anti-poverty programs. And states would be instructed to hand that money down to community groups that work with poor people, because, as Ryan writes, They are more effective than distant federal bureaucracies and have intimate knowledge of the people they serveas well as their ability to take the long view.
The underlying thesis is that those who are closest to actual poor people will be best able to figure out how to help them. But Ryan fails to take this idea to its end conclusion: that poor people themselves, being the closest to their own situations, are the most knowledgable about what they need to improve their lives. Instead, his proposal calls for low-income people to meet with providers to create a customized life plan, a contract that includes goals and benchmarks, as well as penalties for missing any steps.
In describing what this would look like, Ryan outlines the minimum requirements:
A contract outlining specific and measurable benchmarks for success
A timeline for meeting these benchmarks
Sanctions for breaking the terms of the contract
Incentives for exceeding the terms of the contract
Time limits for remaining on cash assistance
...
An entirely different approach would take out the middle man of the providers and let poor people decide for themselves how best to improve their lives. This could be done by simply giving money, without strings attached, to the poor. While it may sound radical, there have been experiments that have done just this and found positive results.
In Uganda, the government gave about a years worth of income, or about $380, to a group of applicants, and denied it to the other half. There were no conditions on the money, but those who got it invested most of it in skills and business assets, ending up 65 percent more likely to practice a skilled trade. Recipients worked an average 17 hours more than those without the money. And compared to the group that didnt get the cash, those who did saw a 49 percent increase in earnings two years later and a 41 percent increase four years out, indicating that the effects last.
A similar study in Kenya found that after poor families in rural Kenya were given an average of $513 by an NGO, their assets and holdings were 58 percent higher than a control group a year later, incomes were 33 percent higher, hunger was significantly reduced, and their psychological wellbeing increased.
Similar programs in South Africa, Mexico, and Liberia have all found similar results.