5 ms·

Very interesting, and a stark contrast to the article about the Red Cross relief: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9664983 https://news.ycombinator.com/ite

Very interesting, and a stark contrast to the article about the Red Cross relief: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9664983 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9664983 jbniche points out: "Just think the impact that would have had if it had been divided up and given directly to each Haitian adult. The adult population of Haiti is roughly 6 million, so we're talking about almost $100 per adult Haitian. Roughly, it's about 1/8 of the per capita GDP of Haiti. Imagine what you could if you were a poor American and received 1/8 of the American per capita GDP after a disaster (~6000 USD). That's a new roof, or a replacement vehicle, etc. It's not life changing, but it would have been very significant, and massive in scale." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9666390 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9666390 and the article supports his point, saying that "A 2013 study in Uganda found that people who received cash enjoyed a 49 percent earnings boost after two years, and a 41 percent increase after four years, compared to people who hadn't gotten a transfer. Another study in Sri Lanka found rates of return averaging 80 percent after five years. In Uganda, not only were the cash recipients better off, but their number of hours worked and labor productivity actually increased." But for smaller amounts (like the U$ 100 proposed), "One program gave $200 to at-risk Liberian men who were either homeless or who made their income from dealing drugs or stealing. The lead researcher, Chris Blattman, summarized the findings in an op-ed in The New York Times: "Almost no men wasted [the money]. In the months after they got the cash, most dressed, ate and lived better. Unlike the Ugandans, however, whose new businesses kept growing, the Liberian men were back where they started a year later. Two hundred dollars was not enough to turn them into businessmen. But it brought them a better life for a while, which is the fundamental goal of any welfare program. We also tested a counseling program to reduce crime and violence. It worked a little on its own, but had the largest impact when combined with cash.""

nmrm2 11y ago
Development and emergency response are very different problems. $100 or even $6000 isn't useful if there's no way to get to the things you need to buy, or if local scarcity pushes prices for bare necessities obscenely high. Vaccinations, blankets and tents, food, etc. can be hard to find in a disaster-stricken area. Heck, even finding a way to get at the money can be difficult if the roads and electricity are out. (I'm not defending the Red Cross, but I would unsurprised if "just give them money" is less effective in the case of disaster relief than in the case of development.)
- rosser 11y ago
  I'm not defending the Red Cross... Probably a good thing, because AFAICT, they're pretty much indefensible at this point.
  - pvaldes 11y ago
    I'm not having any problem and not feeling ashamed at all defending the Red Cross instead. If you just give poor people any money in Port au Prince after the earthquake, you simply atract predators that will beat and steal those people living in the streets easily, collecting all this money in the blink of an eye. Rich people in Haiti did not seem to care much for the bad luck of the poor people either.
  - vijayr 11y ago
    Not sure how the non profits work, but aren't there laws to force them to publish all their fundraising data and expenses data? Last week there was an article on how a cancer nonprofit raised tens of millions of dollars, only to be swindled by the family running it. They were during it for a while before getting caught.
- TylerE 11y ago
  It's even worse as pumping lots of cash into a small area is only going to cause local hyper-inflation.
  - rosser 11y ago
    ...only going to cause... I think this and other efforts are pretty clearly demonstrating that this doesn't necessarily happen. EDIT: Not to say it can't happen, but I'm pretty tired of this quasi-religious assertion that giving money to poor people will just inflate that money into meaninglessness, particularly when it has repeatedly not happened.
    - nmrm2 11y ago
      But rapid price inflation for certain goods seems much more likely in the context of a natural disaster. Without a coordinated response, for a certain amount of time there will only be X tents reachable from the affected area, where # of people who need tents >> X. Ditto for vaccines and non-perishable food. Absent (enforced) price controls or incredibly nimble infrastructure repair, rampant price inflation for bare essentials seems more likely than not. (edit to avoid further confusion: The point of this post is simply to point out that local economies behave very differently after a disaster. In particular, if you need X of something in order for people to not die and you only have << X available (perhaps 0), then cash handouts aren't really helpful in the short-term.)
topynate 11y ago
Maybe the solution is to give money to people who are poor and either working or not able to, and give a decent paying job to everyone else. Edited to add: and looking at the concerns of one of the aid recipients, something should probably also be done about radio programmes spreading conspiracy theories about devil worshipping aid workers.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  > Edited to add: and looking at the concerns of one of the aid recipients, something should probably also be done about radio programmes spreading conspiracy theories about devil worshipping aid workers. I don't have any idea what and how can be done with that, given that the first world's situation is much, much worse in that regard. Most of what the media does is regurgitate bullshit about everything; we may not have "devil worshipers", but we do have "big pharma".
trhway 11y ago
going by that logic US should just have given Afghanistan and Iraq people those $2T+ the US spent on the wars there instead... Given 33M population of the each of the both countries, it would be just meager $30K/person (half a Hellfire)
- nmrm2 11y ago
  I'm not sure why you're being down-voted. $2T in well-placed handouts seems like a pretty effective way to win "hearts and minds". The test mentioned at the end of the article ("would just handing citizens of this country the cost of a war be more effective at regime change than toppling the regime?") seems like a good initial test when evaluating whether war is necessary. In general, soft power as an alternative to hard power is a serious question in national security strategy -- trhway's comment is not a troll, it's something security/IR researchers and policy makers take quite seriously.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  I don't see much wrong with that logic; frankly, it sounds to me like much better solution than what's happening now. And if they really, really need to kill some people, then Operation Penny-Drop still sounds much better than what they do now. http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=penny_drop http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=penny_drop (warning about the site: contains lots of offensive and obscene language that can mask the author being usually right about things)
shkkmo 11y ago
Which just dovetails with my thoughts after reading the Red Cross article. How much more effective could they have been if they had used the money to start a "non-profit incubator" in Haiti. They could have increased funding to successful organizations, cut off funding to unsuccessful ones, and possibly found ways to get around the numerous issues plaguing non-profits that could then be shared with other NGOs.
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  Pretty first-world view. They were dying for lack of clean water, and what they needed was ... a non-profit incubator?
  - shkkmo 11y ago
    What they needed was to provide resources, tools and support to the locals to solve their problems. I think it's more 'first-world' to bring in foreigners to solve their problems for them. The article directly talks about how the Red Cross did a very poor job of hiring locals, especially in positions responsible for making choices, and had a tendency to dismiss their value.
maged 11y ago
I read a comparison of the Liberia to Uganda, Kenya examples before that said its because Liberia('s slums) are at a worse of starting point. For the programs to be effective it needs to target extreme poor who still at least have access to infrastructure and resources to develop. If that isn't there then charity would be more effective in developing those things.

nmrm2 11y ago

Development and emergency response are very different problems. $100 or even $6000 isn't useful if there's no way to get to the things you need to buy, or if local scarcity pushes prices for bare necessities obscenely high. Vaccinations, blankets and tents, food, etc. can be hard to find in a disaster-stricken area. Heck, even finding a way to get at the money can be difficult if the roads and electricity are out. (I'm not defending the Red Cross, but I would unsurprised if "just give them money" is less effective in the case of disaster relief than in the case of development.)

rosser 11y ago
I'm not defending the Red Cross... Probably a good thing, because AFAICT, they're pretty much indefensible at this point.
- pvaldes 11y ago
  I'm not having any problem and not feeling ashamed at all defending the Red Cross instead. If you just give poor people any money in Port au Prince after the earthquake, you simply atract predators that will beat and steal those people living in the streets easily, collecting all this money in the blink of an eye. Rich people in Haiti did not seem to care much for the bad luck of the poor people either.
- vijayr 11y ago
  Not sure how the non profits work, but aren't there laws to force them to publish all their fundraising data and expenses data? Last week there was an article on how a cancer nonprofit raised tens of millions of dollars, only to be swindled by the family running it. They were during it for a while before getting caught.
TylerE 11y ago
It's even worse as pumping lots of cash into a small area is only going to cause local hyper-inflation.
- rosser 11y ago
  ...only going to cause... I think this and other efforts are pretty clearly demonstrating that this doesn't necessarily happen. EDIT: Not to say it can't happen, but I'm pretty tired of this quasi-religious assertion that giving money to poor people will just inflate that money into meaninglessness, particularly when it has repeatedly not happened.
  - nmrm2 11y ago
    But rapid price inflation for certain goods seems much more likely in the context of a natural disaster. Without a coordinated response, for a certain amount of time there will only be X tents reachable from the affected area, where # of people who need tents >> X. Ditto for vaccines and non-perishable food. Absent (enforced) price controls or incredibly nimble infrastructure repair, rampant price inflation for bare essentials seems more likely than not. (edit to avoid further confusion: The point of this post is simply to point out that local economies behave very differently after a disaster. In particular, if you need X of something in order for people to not die and you only have << X available (perhaps 0), then cash handouts aren't really helpful in the short-term.)

topynate 11y ago

Maybe the solution is to give money to people who are poor and either working or not able to, and give a decent paying job to everyone else. Edited to add: and looking at the concerns of one of the aid recipients, something should probably also be done about radio programmes spreading conspiracy theories about devil worshipping aid workers.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
> Edited to add: and looking at the concerns of one of the aid recipients, something should probably also be done about radio programmes spreading conspiracy theories about devil worshipping aid workers. I don't have any idea what and how can be done with that, given that the first world's situation is much, much worse in that regard. Most of what the media does is regurgitate bullshit about everything; we may not have "devil worshipers", but we do have "big pharma".

trhway 11y ago

going by that logic US should just have given Afghanistan and Iraq people those $2T+ the US spent on the wars there instead... Given 33M population of the each of the both countries, it would be just meager $30K/person (half a Hellfire)

nmrm2 11y ago
I'm not sure why you're being down-voted. $2T in well-placed handouts seems like a pretty effective way to win "hearts and minds". The test mentioned at the end of the article ("would just handing citizens of this country the cost of a war be more effective at regime change than toppling the regime?") seems like a good initial test when evaluating whether war is necessary. In general, soft power as an alternative to hard power is a serious question in national security strategy -- trhway's comment is not a troll, it's something security/IR researchers and policy makers take quite seriously.
TeMPOraL 11y ago
I don't see much wrong with that logic; frankly, it sounds to me like much better solution than what's happening now. And if they really, really need to kill some people, then Operation Penny-Drop still sounds much better than what they do now. http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=penny_drop http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=penny_drop (warning about the site: contains lots of offensive and obscene language that can mask the author being usually right about things)

shkkmo 11y ago

Which just dovetails with my thoughts after reading the Red Cross article. How much more effective could they have been if they had used the money to start a "non-profit incubator" in Haiti. They could have increased funding to successful organizations, cut off funding to unsuccessful ones, and possibly found ways to get around the numerous issues plaguing non-profits that could then be shared with other NGOs.

JoeAltmaier 11y ago
Pretty first-world view. They were dying for lack of clean water, and what they needed was ... a non-profit incubator?
- shkkmo 11y ago
  What they needed was to provide resources, tools and support to the locals to solve their problems. I think it's more 'first-world' to bring in foreigners to solve their problems for them. The article directly talks about how the Red Cross did a very poor job of hiring locals, especially in positions responsible for making choices, and had a tendency to dismiss their value.

maged 11y ago

I read a comparison of the Liberia to Uganda, Kenya examples before that said its because Liberia('s slums) are at a worse of starting point. For the programs to be effective it needs to target extreme poor who still at least have access to infrastructure and resources to develop. If that isn't there then charity would be more effective in developing those things.