Few development initiatives have been evaluated as rigorously as CCT programs. The implementation of conditional cash transfer programs has been accompanied by systematic efforts to measure their effectiveness and understand their broader impact on households’ behavior,...
Evaluation results are available for PROGRESA in Mexico, PETI in Brazil and the Atencion a Crisis in Nicaragua....
CCTs have affected not only the overall level of consumption, but also the composition of consumption. There is a good deal of evidence that households that receive CCTs spend more on food and, within the food basket, on higher-quality sources of nutrients than do households that do not receive the transfer but have comparable overall income or consumption levels. In Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Turkey, where school enrollment rates among girls were lower than among boys, CCTs have helped reduce this gender gap. CCTs have resulted in sizeable reductions in poverty among recipients—especially when the transfer has been sufficient, well targeted, and structured in a way that does not discourage recipients from taking other actions to escape poverty. Because CCTs provide a steady income, they have helped protect poor households from the worst effects of unemployment, catastrophic illness, and other sudden income shocks. And making cash transfers to women, as virtually all CCTs do, may have increased the bargaining power of women.
reply to post by Skyfloating
Seems like the ultimate behavior modification experiment. There are a lot of people who need help and assistance and I suppose while the reward part of this for good action (children's school attendance) is a worthwhile goal you've got to wonder how long it would be until someone in power decides to use it for other purposes.
Example, if the two parties in the US got a hold of this idea conservative may end up rewarding children going to religious indoctrination while progressives may want to reward gun free homes.edit on 800pm3737pm12014 by Bassago because: (no reason given)
Seems like the ultimate behavior modification experiment.
The other one, which I mentioned in the other thread, and which is mostly in my head maybe, is to give people a "breathing year."
A year free from the continual stresses of where they are going to sleep or what they are going to eat or what happens if they get cancer. Give them that and let them breathe for a minute and find a job or go to school or simply recover for decades of stressors. This is sort of what happened to me in an informal way when I lost my job and someone gave me this no strings attached. i was able to save and regroup, re-educate, and find a new place in the world again because I wasn't worried about all the millions of things the truly poor have to worry about daily. This kind of stress in itself is counter-productive.
Example, if the two parties in the US got a hold of this idea conservatives may end up rewarding children going to religious indoctrination while progressives may want to reward gun free homes.edit on 801pm1313pm12014 by Bassago because: (no reason given)
Like most legal wordings it is kind of hard to understand. I do like the part that says if you find a job, you won't be cut off right away.
I dont know how welfare works. But if somebody has been on welfare and takes a job, maybe they shouldnt be cut off right away. We should encourage that.
In the long run, I bet you both these solutions would work better than what we have now. And whatever solutions we do try, we know some will fail.
Example, if the two parties in the US got a hold of this idea conservatives may end up rewarding children going to religious indoctrination while progressives may want to reward gun free homes.
Thats a pretty dark scenario there...worst case.
Scandinavian countries run a bit like this. Time to get educated or raise your kids worry free. And they're happy there.
edit on 3/23/2014 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)