3 ms·

This is a great article. Not because it proves a particular point (we should accept the evidence no matter where it leads) but because of the clarity of the ar

This is a great article. Not because it proves a particular point (we should accept the evidence no matter where it leads) but because of the clarity of the article, and the fact that it accurately represents the academic paper: on a cursory reading of the academic paper, the randomization is truly as good as they sell it in the linked article. I think this is potentially a big step forward in our understanding of development. It challenges the assumption that the main thing holding back development is a lack of investment in human capital (training) rather than a lack of access to physical capital. The only issue I have is whether you can expect the same results from one-off payments, as an ongoing basic income, and whether we can expect the same results for the whole population as the group that was selected, who seem to form a very specific group.

bdcs 13y ago
If I recall correctly, it has been shown that Basic Income Guarantees[1] (free cash without means testing besides citizenship) works incredibly well for both developed and developing countries. This article comes as no surprise, but is well-written and compelling which is a great boon to BIG. Despite stereotypes of poor people, basic income is used very effectively with little administrative cost (not for booze and gambling? how bizarre!): - People work more and for a higher wage (exceptions: recently pregnant mothers and students) - Domestic abuse plummets - People are unemployed LONGER, but use that time to find a job they like more (or create their own!) This form of welfare has been supported by people on the right (Friedman, Hayek) and left (Russell). I'm really disappointed it isn't used to greater effect. Voters and tax-payers have simply no faith in those damned poor people to make the right decision it seems. Here's a great story from in Canada, where it was referred to as Mincome [2] BIG also works well in India, where women, in particular, benefit[3]. A further benefit is it is highly corruption resistant. There are no tests, forms, etc. If you're a citizen, you get cash. Done. Please, anyone, show me some research that shows BIG doesn't work well. Cheers [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_guarantee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_guarantee [2] A town without poverty? http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/4100 http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/4100 [3] http://www.soas.ac.uk/news/newsitem84314.html http://www.soas.ac.uk/news/newsitem84314.html
- mc-lovin 13y ago
  You are making very big claims without adequate references. The study shows the effects of a one-off payment, to a highly selective group (note that I'm not implying their randomization was bad, but that both treatment and control groups were very special relative to the whole population), an a particular developing country. You may personally believe that this is part of a general phenomenon that applies to highly developed countries, to all groups of people in that country, and in the long term not just the short term, but you have presented little evidence for the claims in your first paragraph (I read all the links). You seem to view BIG as somehow unique, when in fact it is functionally equivalent to progressive taxation plus welfare, when welfare is only conditional on income. It is also hard to argue against because it treats redistribution, which is a sliding scale, as something absolute: it suggests an (imaginary) bar for "basic" income. I personally believe systems where welfare is primarily conditional in income, but weakly conditional on searching for work or getting training (such as Australia's) are optimal for developed countries. The government can be far more generous when it adds some strings to welfare, than when it is simply giving out money. The only issue is whether countries with different governmental frameworks can copy Australia's model. In short, you seem to be overlooking what I consider the real interest of this study, which is its specific relevance to developing nations. >Please, anyone, show me some research that shows BIG doesn't work well. Cheers That's a very asymmetric way to think about the evidence for and against a particular policy. edit: The specific problem with your evidence, is that on a such a broad topic, I would expect to see an academic review of the literature. What you provided was [1] wikipedia, [2] an interesting example with no control, and [3] something that wasn't an actual academic study, but a description of a program and it's alleged benefits without any peer-reviewed study demonstrating these benefits.
  - Cushman 13y ago
    > I would expect to see an academic review of the literature. What you provided was [1] wikipedia I expect this is why you're seeing downvotes.
    - mc-lovin 13y ago

bdcs 13y ago

If I recall correctly, it has been shown that Basic Income Guarantees[1] (free cash without means testing besides citizenship) works incredibly well for both developed and developing countries. This article comes as no surprise, but is well-written and compelling which is a great boon to BIG. Despite stereotypes of poor people, basic income is used very effectively with little administrative cost (not for booze and gambling? how bizarre!): - People work more and for a higher wage (exceptions: recently pregnant mothers and students) - Domestic abuse plummets - People are unemployed LONGER, but use that time to find a job they like more (or create their own!) This form of welfare has been supported by people on the right (Friedman, Hayek) and left (Russell). I'm really disappointed it isn't used to greater effect. Voters and tax-payers have simply no faith in those damned poor people to make the right decision it seems. Here's a great story from in Canada, where it was referred to as Mincome [2] BIG also works well in India, where women, in particular, benefit[3]. A further benefit is it is highly corruption resistant. There are no tests, forms, etc. If you're a citizen, you get cash. Done. Please, anyone, show me some research that shows BIG doesn't work well. Cheers [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_guarantee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_guarantee [2] A town without poverty? http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/4100 http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/4100 [3] http://www.soas.ac.uk/news/newsitem84314.html http://www.soas.ac.uk/news/newsitem84314.html

mc-lovin 13y ago
You are making very big claims without adequate references. The study shows the effects of a one-off payment, to a highly selective group (note that I'm not implying their randomization was bad, but that both treatment and control groups were very special relative to the whole population), an a particular developing country. You may personally believe that this is part of a general phenomenon that applies to highly developed countries, to all groups of people in that country, and in the long term not just the short term, but you have presented little evidence for the claims in your first paragraph (I read all the links). You seem to view BIG as somehow unique, when in fact it is functionally equivalent to progressive taxation plus welfare, when welfare is only conditional on income. It is also hard to argue against because it treats redistribution, which is a sliding scale, as something absolute: it suggests an (imaginary) bar for "basic" income. I personally believe systems where welfare is primarily conditional in income, but weakly conditional on searching for work or getting training (such as Australia's) are optimal for developed countries. The government can be far more generous when it adds some strings to welfare, than when it is simply giving out money. The only issue is whether countries with different governmental frameworks can copy Australia's model. In short, you seem to be overlooking what I consider the real interest of this study, which is its specific relevance to developing nations. >Please, anyone, show me some research that shows BIG doesn't work well. Cheers That's a very asymmetric way to think about the evidence for and against a particular policy. edit: The specific problem with your evidence, is that on a such a broad topic, I would expect to see an academic review of the literature. What you provided was [1] wikipedia, [2] an interesting example with no control, and [3] something that wasn't an actual academic study, but a description of a program and it's alleged benefits without any peer-reviewed study demonstrating these benefits.
- Cushman 13y ago
  > I would expect to see an academic review of the literature. What you provided was [1] wikipedia I expect this is why you're seeing downvotes.
  - mc-lovin 13y ago