首页
外语
计算机
考研
公务员
职业资格
财经
工程
司法
医学
专升本
自考
实用职业技能
登录
考研
Just giving out cash to poor people is a pretty good way to make them less poor. That might seem obvious, but it wasn’t a common
Just giving out cash to poor people is a pretty good way to make them less poor. That might seem obvious, but it wasn’t a common
admin
2020-08-17
16
问题
Just giving out cash to poor people is a pretty good way to make them less poor. That might seem obvious, but it wasn’t a commonly held viewpoint in development charities until relatively recently. Jacquelline Fuller, who runs Google’s philanthropic arm, has said that when she first pitched one of her bosses on supporting GiveDirectly (a charity doing unrestricted cash transfers), he replied, "You must be smoking crack. "
But in part due to groups like GiveDirectly, and in even larger part due to the success of government programs like Brazil’s Bolsa Familia and Kenya’s cash program for orphans and vulnerable children, that stigma has dissipated. Cash is cool now, at least in some corners.
And for good reason. The most common arguments against giving out cash—that it’s wasted on drugs and alcohol, or makes recipients stop working—have been debunked in repeated studies, and a review of hundreds of studies measuring dozens of different outcomes suggests that cash programs can increase food consumption, boost school attendance, and improve nutrition. If nothing else, cash just mechanically makes people less poor. It’s not a cure-all and has real limitations, but it’s pretty good, and "pretty good" can be hard to find in international development.
One advantage of having a pretty good rough-and-ready way to help poor people abroad is that it gives you something to test against. This is called
"cash benchmarking",
and it’s something that cash fans, like GiveDirectly’s co-founder Paul Niehaus, have promoted for years. The idea is that because cash works reasonably well, respects the independence of recipients, and is relatively easy to hand out at minimal administrative expense, aid agencies should test programs to see if they meet their objectives better than cash would. If they don’t, that’s a pretty good argument to either improve the program or switch to cash.
USAID, the American foreign aid agency, made news in October by testing a nutrition program a-gainst cash. The two performed about equally well, with maybe a slight advantage to the cost-equivalent cash program; a much bigger cash program had really outstanding impacts.
But as a number of development professionals pointed out after I profiled the USAID program, that’s not the full story. At least two other studies have compared complex non-cash aid programs to cash—and beat cash.
Both studies invoke programs commonly known in the development word as " ultra-poor graduation" programs, as they’re meant to
"graduate"
beneficiaries out of extreme poverty.
Graduation programs try to target the very poorest people in already very poor countries. Instead of only giving cash, they give valuable assets (which could be money but could also be an animal like a goat or cow, or equipment like a bicycle or sewing machine) as well as training, mentoring, and ongoing support (and sometimes some cash too, to buy food and keep people going). The hope is that giving some start-up capital and some business skills helps recipients build a small ongoing enterprise-—a small vegetable or dairy farming operation, say, or a bicycle messenger service, or a seamstress shop. That, in turn, is meant to enable a durable escape from poverty.
But recent research has suggested the graduation approach is promising. A massive randomized study published in 2015 by a murderer’s row of prominent development economists—including Northwestern’s Dean Karlan and MT’s Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo, among others—found that a graduation program tested in Ethiopia, Ghana, Honduras, India, Pakistan, and Peru significantly increased income and savings, reduced hunger and missed meal, and improved mental health, on average. It worked in every country but Honduras, where people fell behind when the chickens they were given died of disease.
Giving out cash directly may NOT help________.
选项
A、increase food consumption
B、boost school attendance
C、improve nutrition
D、fight the use of drugs and alcohol
答案
D
解析
事实细节题。第四段第二句后半句提到,直接进行现金资助可以增加食物消费、提高就学率、改善人们的营养状况。A项、B项和C项都是直接进行现金资助的好处,D项未提及。本题为选非题,故答案为D项。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/WNra777K
本试题收录于:
翻译硕士(翻译硕士英语)题库专业硕士分类
0
翻译硕士(翻译硕士英语)
专业硕士
相关试题推荐
联合国教育、科学及文化组织(简称:联合国教科文组织,英文:UnitedNationsEducationalScientific:andCulturalOrganization,缩写UNESCO)成立于1946年11月,是联合国下属的专门机构之一。
长臂管辖(权)(long-armjurisdiction)是美国法院在民事诉讼中确定对案件是否拥有管辖权的一项规则。在1945年的国际鞋业公司诉华盛顿州案中,美国联邦最高法院以“最低限度联系”理论为基础,创立了特殊属人管辖权(specificjuris
The______ofsmokingamongwomen,formerlynegligible,hasgrowntosuchadegreethatlungcancerhasbecomethechiefcauser
Theterrifiedhunter,______inthearmsofahugebear,foughtdesperatelytoloosenitsgrip.
PetroleumPetroleum,likecoal,isfoundinsedimentaryrocks,andwasprobablyformedfromlong-deadlivingorganisms.Ther
Inthe1920s,thepioneersofartificialintelligence(AI)predictedthat,bytheendofthiscentury,computerswouldbeconver
Inthe1920s,thepioneersofartificialintelligence(AI)predictedthat,bytheendofthiscentury,computerswouldbeconver
Listeningtothethrillingstoriesmademyflesh______.
Inthe19thcentury,itwascommontohearpeopleinEuropeandAmericasaythattheresourcesoftheseawereunlimited.Forex
Hisillnessisnot________causeanxiety.
随机试题
顶体反应
阿拓莫兰是谷胱甘肽的
邪热内盛,深伏于里,阳气被遏,不能外达,手足厥冷。属于
下列属于投资控制纠偏措施中的组织措施的是()。
建设项目施工阶段对项目投资和使用功能具有()。
《中华人民共和国海关对报关员记分考核管理办法》的施行时间是()。
黄河公司以其房屋作抵押,先后向甲银行借款100万元,乙银行借款300万元,丙银行借款500万元,并依次办理了抵押登记。后丙银行与甲银行商定交换各自抵押权的顺位,并办理了变更登记,但乙银行并不知情。因黄河公司无力偿还三家银行的到期债务,银行拍卖其房屋,仅得价
甲企业为增值税一般纳税人,适用的增值税税率为13%,2019年度至2021年度发生的有关固定资产的经济业务如下:(1)2019年6月1日,自行建造一条生产线。建造过程中领用工程物资300万元,领用原材料200万元,建造工人工资80万元,用银行存款支付其他
用于行政管理的“命令(令)”其发布权限属于地方各级人民政府。()
Howdoyouworkwithotherpeople?Doyouknowyourownpersonalstrengthsandweaknesses?Lookatthese‘types’belowanddecide
最新回复
(
0
)