Too many strings attached

This is a fascinating story on a study in Mexico that offers some evidence that distributing cash, rather than vouchers or food, does a better job of assisting the poor.

As the story makes clear, this is just one story and one study and drawing broad conclusions doesn’t make a lot of sense. But what the study does is “it adds to a growing pool of evidence that cash transfers actually aren’t ‘wasted’ on frivolous things and do improve poor peoples’ lives in observable ways.”

Studies like these are important, therefore, because they have the potential to move us away from a system of welfare (I use the term to describe the broad set of programs that include general assistance, food aid, housing, etc) constructed on a punitive, behavioral model toward one in which we acknowledge that assistance is needed and that it is in the best interests of both those being helped and the larger society to help without strings.

Let people who are receiving the aid make their own decisions about what to do with it. Let them set their own priorities.

Will they all make smart decisions all of the time? No. None of us do, and it does not stop us from receiving various forms of government aid, whether in the form of mortgage deductions and various tax right offs or direct outlays. No one checks to see that we have used the money in a “morally acceptable” manner. We just take the money and do what we want with it. Why should the poor be treated any differently?

Yes, some are going to buy drugs or drink, but many — maybe most — will use the money to keep their heads above water, making choices based upon what is required of them at the moment.

That’s how the rest of us live. We take our paychecks and the other money that comes in, and we balance the various interests in our lives. When money is tight, we might opt to cut back on food to make sure the rent is paid, or to keep the lights on. Or we might buy a six pack and watch baseball or buy porn or go out carousing.

The poor, however, are not afforded that leeway simply because they are poor. We have decided that they are morally or intellectually inferior, so we treat them as 10-year-olds, attaching strings to every bit of help we offer. It is worse in some states than others, though, even in relatively generous states, the application processes for receiving assistance is long and complicated and designed to intimidate. (Read both Jonathan Kozol and Michael Harrington on this.)

There is no evidence that our paternalistic approach to aid is more efficient or more effective than a more generous and open approach. But there are few efforts — and fewer studies of these efforts — being made to explore alternatives aside from finding new hoops for the poor to jump through as they attempt to get help.

It is part of a larger cultural/social mindset that assumes that the poor lack value, that their lack of resources somehow is evidence of a lack of humanity on their part, which then allows us to treat them like they were less than human. Isn’t it time this changed?

Send me an e-mail.

Author: hankkalet

Hank Kalet is a poet and freelance journalist. He is the economic needs reporter for NJ Spotlight, teaches journalism at Rutgers University and writing at Middlesex County College and Brookdale Community College. He writes a semi-monthly column for the Progressive Populist. He is a lifelong fan of the New York Mets and New York Knicks, drinks too much coffee and attends as many Bruce Springsteen concerts as his meager finances will allow. He lives in South Brunswick with his wife Annie. View all posts by hankkalet