Conditional Aid
Discuss the benefits and risks of direct giving vs conditional aid. Why do development agencies tie development aid to specific projects rather than simply give money to poor people? What are the costs and benefits of various approaches? What evidence is there to support one approach over another?
Goals
Develop critical thinking regarding the structure and requirements of development aid programs.
Lesson Details
What happens if you simply give poor people cash? For decades, development agencies have concocted a variety of “conditional” development projects. For example, an agency might build a school, provide agricultural education, or give livestock to poor people in developing countries. An obvious question for social scientists is this: Is it better for long-term development to make aid conditioned on specific behaviors or projects or is development better achieved by giving poor people cash, and letting them decide what to do with it? There are a number of problems with “conditional aid”: (1) Projects can be implemented without sufficient input from the target population, which can lead to a poor fit between project activities and local conditions. (2) Implementing a conditional development project is expensive requiring staff, offices and multiple “overhead” costs that do not really benefit poor people. A recent trend in development economics seeks to generate empirical data on the effectiveness of various approaches to development. The lesson materials above give you an introduction to the key issues and current activities in direct giving vs conditional aid.
Readings:
How to Fight Poverty: https://www.fastcompany.com/3049642/how-to-fight-poverty-its-simple-give-cash-to-poor-people
Additional advanced reading: Measuring Women’s Decisionmaking: Indicator Choice and Survey Design Experiments from Cash and Food Transfer Evaluations in Ecuador, Uganda, and Yemen
Activity:
Watch the videos and listen podcast on direct giving:
What happens when you give poor people money? Podcast from Planet Money: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/10/25/240590433/what-happens-when-you-just-give-money-to-poor-people
Universal Basic Income in Africa: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/givedirectly-cash-aid-kenya
Financial mechanics of direct giving to developing nations: https://www.inc.com/paul-niehaus/the-big-idea-behind-givedirectlys-radical-charity-experiment.html
Essay length
Two full pages, double spaced.
Professor’s Criteria:
Identify the problem or question at issue (and/or the source’s position; i.e., the position of the author).
Strong: Identifies not only the basics of the issue, but recognizes the nuances (deeper meaning) of the issue in within the broader scheme
Weak: Does not identify issue; is confused about the issue, or represents the issue inaccurately
Articulate a distinct, critical perspective and position in relation to the issue.
Strong: Identifies and considers multiple salient perspectives and positions
Weak: Deals only with a single view/perspective and fails to discuss other possible perspectives or positions
Identify and consider the influence of context on the issue.
Strong: Analyzes the issue with a clear sense of scope and context, considers the influence of contexts on family processes, stress, and coping.
Weak: Treats the issue in isolation, without relationship to other contexts relevant to the topic.
Contexts to consider: gender, race, socioeconomic class, sexual orientation, family structure, family history or patterns of relating, values, and personal experiences
Identify and assess the key assumptions (or underlying theory) relevant to the issue.
Strong: Identifies the key assumptions or underlying theory that shape or direct an argument, issue, or research.
Weak: Does not identify or consider the assumptions, theory, or values that shape or direct an argument or issue
Identify and assess the quality of evidence / data related to an issue.
Strong:
Examines the information provided, questioning the accuracy, precision, relevance, completeness and the connection between theory, research, and application. Evaluates the reliability of information and its source.
Clearly distinguishes between fact, opinion, and value judgments.
Demonstrates and understanding of the difference between causality and correlation.
Weak:
Merely repeats information provided, taking it as truth, or denies the evidence/information without providing a supporting argument or justification for doing so.
Does not make distinctions between fact, opinion, and value judgments.
Confuses correlational data/ information with causality; makes unsupported statements about causality.
Identify and assess conclusions and implications of the issue / problem.
Strong: Identifies and logically discusses conclusions and/or implications of the issue considering the contexts, assumptions, and evidence.
Weak: Fails to identify or logically discuss conclusions and/or implications in relation to context, assumptions, and evidence.
Quality of the writing is high.
Strong: Written communication is organized, clear, concise, and logical. Proper grammar and punctuation are used.
Weak: Scattered or illogical thought; repetitive or redundant statements; misuse
