|
|
|
|
|
|
by radu_floricica
1632 days ago
|
|
|
Thanks for saying that. "Give them money" may not be the most optimum solution, but it's nearly always the most practical. Not only is it least likely to lead to unwanted side effects, it's actually most likely to generate positives ones. If you're allowed to decide how to spend your money, you're likely to do a lot of low-hanging-fruit stuff that you wouldn't otherwise, like fix that windy window frame. No governmental program can even come close to this efficiency - they'd just do a "thermal reabitation" on the whole building, which will be 50% better and 900000% more expensive. The reason giving money works so well is that it is both very flexible, and uses a huge information advantage - each person knows their situation better than the government. It's not about gov being inefficient (tho they may be) it's that it's incapable in principle of approaching the efficiency of "give them money". |
|
|
Small cash transfers may be one of the most effective form of poverty relief in politically stable poor countries with at least a nascent market economy. In a peer-reviewed trial in Kenya it was found to have substantial positive effects on the local economy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GiveDirectly#Basic_income_expe...
One of the most common uses of the funds was buy galvanized roofing. It's very expensive compared to thatching up front, but lasts a lifetime and eliminates both the labour and material costs for ongoing maintenance.
That would never have occurred to me. If I had wanted to help them with in-kind donations, I may well have sent something relatively much less useful, lacking awareness of their local context. Very real risk of sending coals to Newcastle, there.
I know that in some developed countries, organizations like food banks also run into this. People will donate food in-kind, but most food banks would rather receive cash to have flexibility in addressing needs as they arise.