Another way of organizing my thoughts on UBI research.
Poverty can be straightforwardly ameliorated with cash grants.
Poverty is also associated with a lot of bad outcomes and people sometimes refer to that whole bundle as “poverty” but instead let’s call it “shmoverty.”
Poverty can be straightforwardly ameliorated with cash grants.
Poverty is also associated with a lot of bad outcomes and people sometimes refer to that whole bundle as “poverty” but instead let’s call it “shmoverty.”
In the global context, research indicates that reducing poverty with cash grants also makes a lot of progress against shmoverty.
The domestic evidence on shmoverty impacts looks much weaker.
slowboring.com/p/what-cash-ca…
The domestic evidence on shmoverty impacts looks much weaker.
slowboring.com/p/what-cash-ca…
Since shmoverty is bad, it’s worth thinking about programs in part in terms of their impact on shmoverty.
I think the best evidence is that cash is no worse on this score than certain cash-like benefit programs so there is an efficiency case for switching them to cash.
I think the best evidence is that cash is no worse on this score than certain cash-like benefit programs so there is an efficiency case for switching them to cash.
People debate the value of Medicaid, but I think the best read of the evidence is that it’s pretty effective at fighting some key aspects of shmoverty which probably makes it worth prioritizing as a cause.
nber.org/papers/w33719
nber.org/papers/w33719
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
