[chton]

That's why it's important that it's a one-time donation, not a recurring additional paycheck. If you give 'the poor' an additional paycheck, yes, it will have an impact on the willingness to work and save. If you give them a one-time donation, on the other hand, they can use it to improve their lives in the longer term, without reducing work. That's what the data (as quoted in the article) shows.

I believe the reasoning for why that should be goes back to the cycle of poverty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycle_of_poverty). It's harder to make more money if you don't already have more money. By giving a one-time lump sum, you give people the opportunity to dig themselves out of that hole. Eating better, dressing better, buying things that last longer, these all have big impacts on how much one can save and earn. Even getting some basic education helps enormous amounts. In the end, it might even lead to people being more willing to work harder and actively save more money.

[scarmig]

What's important is that it be an unconditional donation, not that it not be recurring. Yes, a one-time gift is (usually) not contingent, but you can also have recurring unconditional income that's not means tested.

Take out the means testing, and you remove the incentive not to work. They can still work, and, if anything, it lets people get out of the psychological hole where they have to make decisions that aren't utility-optimizing in the long term just in order to survive.

[tjradcliffe]

> That's why it's important that it's a one-time donation, not a recurring additional paycheck

It can only be a one-time donation if no one ever does this again, so that's basically saying, "it's important that this whole model of charity never becomes so dominant as to give people multiple kicks at different cans of the same type."

The problem with long-term poverty is rarely lack of money as such. It is lack of access to capital (which is a different issue) and most importantly lack of the rule of law (which makes access to both money and capital difficult.)

There are charities that promote the rule of law (Amnesty, World Justice Project) that are more likely to change things in the long run than charities that respond to immediate needs (athough I'm all in favour of people supporting both.)

[Bostonian]

Yes, but if the program becomes well known and expands in scale, some poor people may think there is a chance they will become grant recipients, and this could affect their work effort.