Evidence from recent U.S. randomized trials suggests guaranteed monthly cash doesn’t durably move health, employment, or child outcomes for chronically poor households. Cash may work best in acute situations—disasters, pregnancy, domestic violence—while long‑run poverty reduction depends on stronger schools, healthcare, and housing systems.
— This proposes a practical split in welfare design that redirects broad cash schemes toward emergencies and invests chronic‑poverty dollars into institutional capacity.
2025.10.02
70% relevant
Ed Latimore’s essay argues that a 'scarcity mindset' persists even after income increases and that financial education and cash alone won’t undo long-term poverty habits, reinforcing the case that cash works best for acute needs while durable solutions require institutional supports.
Cremieux
2025.09.26
60% relevant
By documenting that most poverty is transitory while chronic poverty is a minority, the piece reinforces the policy split: short-term assistance for temporary shocks versus institutional fixes for persistent cases.
Arnold Kling
2025.08.28
82% relevant
Kling quotes Matt Yglesias’ summary of Kelsey Piper’s review: cash 'levels up' Kenyans but shows disappointing impacts in U.S. trials because many domestic poor face dysfunction that money alone doesn’t fix—mirroring the argument to use cash for acute needs and build institutions for chronic poverty.
Kelsey Piper
2025.08.19
100% relevant
Kelsey Piper’s conclusion that 'cash as an intervention is best used in emergencies' after reviewing U.S. guaranteed income RCTs with null effects.