2014 Shaping the Future of New York Fridays: 11:00-1:45 Boylan Hall, 2231

Often when we hit times of economic recession, budget cuts are highest or first taken into effect for programs that help those on the lower end of the socio-economic ladder. Budgets can always get “cut” but money that is taken from one sector ends up being spent in another (i.e. NYS cutting higher education funding, while increasing spending on prisons, http://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/jpi/nysom.pdf). This very well could be the aftermath of austerity tactics within policymaking; however, poor social policy intervention leads to poor health. Most of the time it seems like policy is crafted to mimic other successful social welfare programs, however the cookie cutter method should have already proven its detriment.  As described in “Social Policy Interventions and Health,” Chile, Mexico, and Brazil all managed to launch CCT programs, but in varying ways.

CCT programs in NYC are currently non-existent. Opportunity NYC (designed after the international CCT programs being implemented) would have been better off being reanalyzed and changed to meet its weak points rather than being cut completely. What could be learned however is that social policy intervention should tackle the root of health disparities, allowing for people to live healthier lives while simultaneously enhancing education and social welfare.

The key point that I got from the reading was that the CCT programs have exponentially positive effects in poorer countries and the effect on richer countries can be variable. Yet the programs seem so effective, so wonderful at reducing poverty rates. I could not help but think of ways that these programs would not work in America. America does have a self determination culture as we have been talking about in class and these program would directly target the poor. The poor would be put on display to be further stigmatized and blamed for their conditions, unless mass media begins to change the way the poor are painted as lazy, ungrateful, and leaching off of the government and tax payers money. Admittedly, it is not many people who feel this way but media does portray it as such from a conservative republican side at least. The vocal minority was a concept we spoke of in class and I do believe that if CCT programs were brought up on a national scale, the vocal minority would be ready to strike.
The chapter read “The programme emphasizes opportunities for greater well-being rather than punitive measures for poor performance” which does not sound like America’s way of coping with situations. There is also the issue of bureaucracy that was cited as a reason that Brazil was having problems with their CCT programs; there were high administrative costs, people were not able to have access to what they needed quickly. This already sounds like our healthcare system as we also mentioned in class earlier. The highest amount of money spent by insurances is done on administrative work to make sure claims are filed properly and timely and directly in line with what is required of doctors, nurses, and patients. How would this equate to the CCT programs on such a massive scale? What would be the condition through which these cash transfers would occur? We do not have rampant child labor problems and most children are placed in school. Under what condition would they make people work, something similar to mandatory volunteering? These are just a few of the questions I have and reasons as to why it could not work in America.

Regardless, I believe the plans themselves are wonderful at creating a sense of community and civic responsibility while at the same time benefitting the poor. The difference would have to be which of the poor can receive the benefits as many of the people who require resources the most are unable to get them, as seen with the requirement of birth certificates, marriage papers, and the like.

I think the main takeaway from this is fittingly found in the conclusion, all these countries “launched successful CCT programs but in very different ways”. (254) It’s more than okay to accept each nation is unique and complex in its own way and that’s even more reason why we should not just stick to the same Austerity methods that are constantly used over and over again. These CCT programs are creative and help civilians in their communities in ways that directly target them in order to promote the most positive effects.

Unfortunately I can see a lot of backlash from programs like this in the United States because there is a certain demographic of people that will just look at these programs as rewarding people for doing things they should have been doing anyway and feeding the culture of poverty. To them this would seem like breeding grounds for new Welfare Queens to take advantage of American citizens’ hard earned tax money.

One issue I saw that did bring some concern to me however was the idea that programs like this actually ignore structural issues in society that lead to poverty and poor health and that time would be better spent working to deal with those issues first. Honestly I would be happy with either or. :/