The readings this week discussed intervention in social policy, which ultimately affects public health. The success of of CCTs in Chile, Mexico, and Brazil reinforce the idea of public health and social issues being one. I really liked the idea of participatory budgeting that was mentioned in connection with Porto Alegre. This reminds me of the same democratic route that Iceland took after its banking crisis, and the success that was seen with that. It strengthens the idea that people know what is good for them, and including them in the decision-making is a good idea. The results of this type of budgeting show that it is policy-makers, and not the middle and upper class citizens, who tend to ignore those areas that need the most help, as those people voted to improve slum neighborhoods rather than their own.
I was a little confused about this statement: “Governments recognize that poverty lines do not accurately differentiate the poor from the non-poor”. Does this mean that those above the poverty line are still poor enough to require economic aid? If so, then poverty lines seems like an arbitrary number that convey little meaning in a practical sense.
I do wonder how we could implement CCTs in NYC, and how to remove the stigma that is associated with social benefit programs, so that we can target and improve the lives of those who need it the most in our city.
