7 korrents from this piece
Every claim below was made in this piece, quoted word for word and numbered in the order the piece makes them, so you can read it there rather than take our word for it. The sentence above each quote is our reading of the claim, not their wording. Each quote was checked against a stored copy of the page at build time; where the two differ, the quote is the fact.
Their wordsIt is not, “Cash transfers to the poor are a panacea.” More like, “They probably suck less than most of the other things we are doing.” This is not a high bar.
Their wordsIf a poor person is enterprising, and their main problem is insufficient capital, terrific. If that’s not their problem, throwing cash will not do much to help.
Their wordsThird, a cash transfer to help the poor build business is like aspirin to a flesh wound. It helps, but not for long.
Their wordsThe real problem is the absence of firms small and large to employ people productively. The root of the problem is political instability, economic uncertainty, and a country’s high cost structure, among other things. A government’s attention is properly on these bigger issues.
Their wordsIf I were an enterprising young researcher looking for an idea and experiments that will prove powerful in five years, I would try to find the stake I can drive into the heart of the cash transfer movement.
Their wordsMy rule of thumb in this profession: “If the New York Times covers a research paper, the next year we will learn that it’s wrong”.
Our reading
Watching a panacea get crushed by later studies is science working, not a reason for despair.
Their wordsThat is not depressing. That is science. We should welcome it.