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

Since most of our previous readings conveyed a not-too-subtle sense of imminent failure and rampant evil, this week’s reading, by comparison, could be considered almost lighthearted and carefree. I genuinely enjoyed hearing about improvements in countries generally considered underdeveloped, bankrupt and lacking competent leadership. But, to tell you the truth, I have no idea how these CCT programs could possibly lead to any improvement. The numbers thrown out there by Su and Muennig, the authors, just don’t seem to make sense to me. In one of their more terrifying sentences, they wrote that “a very poor family with three children and two teenagers would receive 242 reals,” or $153, per month. I did a bit of Googling and according to the Brazilian daily newspaper, Estadao, a worker on the bottom end of Brazil’s pay scale earns roughly $77.40 per month. Because I know everyone hates math, I’ll do the arithmetic for you. In total that comes out to around $230 per month. For a family of 7. That’s around $30 a person per month. I spent $5 today on coffee and a bagel . I don’t know how things work in Brazil, but I doubt even the most austere families could survive on that little. Another number that didn’t make sense to me was the $21 a month conditionally granted to teenagers in Brazil. Why go to school for $21 a month, when you can work for $77 a month? There is no incentive. Maybe we’ll be able to answer these questions in class.

Even though I definitely found the reading very interesting, I sort of wish it elaborated a bit more on democracy’s “lifesaving” abilities. It might have given new meaning to “Give me Liberty, or give me death!”

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.