Dear Editor,
It is fitting that the 2019 Nobel Prize for Economics was awarded to three Massachusetts Institute of Technology professors whose academic careers were built on the study of poverty alleviation. It is fortuitous that two them, Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo released a book titled, “Good Economics for Hard Times” last week.
I have just finished reading it, and would highly recommend it to those who wish to be better informed about the pros and cons, the advantages and disadvantages, and the pitfalls and implementation issues in the use of cash transfers to address poverty in developing countries.
I wish to quote three of their findings which address concerns about slothfulness; spending indiscretions; and dependency among cash transfer recipients:
(1): “There is no evidence that cash transfers make people work less” on page 289.
(2): “What is very clear from all these experiments is that there is no support in the data for the view that the poor just blow the money on desires rather than needs” on page 288.
(3): “So, there is no evidence that unconditional cash transfers lead to a life of dissolution” on page 292.
Editor, for full disclosure, I highlight those statements because they validate my own views, formed from before I read this book. My views were shaped by earlier readings from other sources. I am not an economist. But I am a lifelong learner.
I have ordered fourteen additional copies of this book to send to Guyana, five for the National Library system, two for the University of Guyana Library and seven for friends of mine who I know are of inquisitive minds. Those who read them can draw their own conclusions.
Yours faithfully,
Dr. Tulsi Dyal Singh
