RealClearPolitics links to a meta analysis of studies which gave money to poor people, new mothers, the homeless, etc. and tried to measure how much it improved their lives. The short answer is that even $1000 a month made little difference in a series of outcome measures. The author says she was very surprised at the lack of positive findings.
A few years back we got really serious about studying cash transfers, and rigorous research began in cities all across America. (snip) The goal was to figure out whether sizable monthly payments help people lead better lives, get better educations and jobs, care more for their children and achieve better health outcomes.
The results aren’t “uncertain.” They’re pretty consistent and very weird. Multiple large, high-quality randomized studies are finding that guaranteed income transfers do not appear to produce sustained improvements in mental health, stress levels, physical health, child development outcomes or employment. Treated participants do work a little less, but shockingly, this doesn’t correspond with either lower stress levels or higher overall reported life satisfaction.
The cash transfers did not improve maternal health outcomes or child health outcomes. They had no effect on stress, depression, body mass index, how often children got sick or the children’s overall health. They did not improve mothers’ self-reported relationship quality or measures of psychological distress. There was no effect on child development.
Here is another example of correlation not being equal to causation. Poverty and bad outcomes go hand in hand, so we immediately think lack of money causes bad outcomes. Instead it appears lack of money is a result of a person who is in some way dysfunctional: impulsiveness, substance abuse, inability to manage money, mental illness, lack of self-control, etc.
Giving people money is easy but largely ineffective. Repairing broken people is hard or impossible given current levels of knowledge, skill, and the legal barriers thereto.
It is telling that the author doesn't want to go there, to blame the victim. Strange how often doing so is appropriate.
