The concept CCT plan seems like an ultimately beneficial idea. Despite many failures in certain areas, there were many successes. We can learn from this that any implemented CCT plan must be highly individualized based on different cities and areas and have a good balance of how much money goes into the program. The government is already giving out money to many that need it but adding an incentive to the poor to take the steps necessary for fixing the poverty cycle (going to school etc…) might end up lowering total costs. The program must be constantly monitoring its successes and failures while accepting criticism and using it to benefit the program in order to maintain optimal efficiency.
09
May 14
Social Policy and CCT’s Reading
In this article, I was astounded by the differences in CCT programs across the globe, and their effects on families. It seems that in Brazil, it is almost impossible to survive as a family in poverty without farming and recieving the aid of CCT. Yet, it makes sense as to why the program is no longer functioning in NYC. During the most recent economic downturn, a program which hands out cash to struggling families looks as though it would be the first to go. It seems citizens in general get very nervous when it comes to giving subsidiaries to those in poverty/ extreme poverty. I thought it was also interesting to note that most countries didn’t find CCT’s particularly helpful, except when paired with very strong social programs. This means that the cash handouts for families must be accompanied by programs that would assist the families in everyday affairs such as dentistry, etc.
I wish it were easier to push more CCT programs across the globe, but for now, it seems to be functioning as an emergency boat for those in countries where it’s incredibly difficult to float along. With that being said, I think it’s still obvious that we need a similar program for NYC families.
09
May 14
CCTs and Social Policy Intervention
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.
