I am skeptical that you can bring someone out of poverty by giving them money. Granted, I'd rather have it given directly to poor people than having it appropriated by their friendly neighborhood corrupt official. However, it seems calculated to make us feel better about ourselves rather than improving conditions on the ground. We've spent how many billions on poverty eradication in Africa, and for that matter in the US? Where is the ROI?<p><i>For a woman with seven children, this translates into 800 Namibian dollars a month, which is considered a moderate income.</i><p>I think some economists are in for a rude surprise: poor people respond to incentive structures, too. (One of the reasons why rich countries have less children than poor countries is you have to concentrate capital on kids to get ROI on them, to phrase it in a very reductionist way. They'll need to be educated, supervised, etc. The invested kids then go on to win.<p>Poor people have little capital to invest and make up for by using the children as a resource. It seems like a great idea at the time, but also virtually guarantees that the kids will be poor. And the cycle repeats itself.<p>Despite this, economists are now suggesting paying people to have children. What could possibly go wrong with that idea.<p>[Incidentally, while I hate to fact check a good story, paying a woman 9,600 Namibian dollars so that she can earn an unaudited "profit" of 1,000 Namibian dollars raising chickens, when the annualized inflation rate is 10% a year, is not all that impressive. Africa needs a few more hard-hearted capitalist bastards to say "Wonderful story, that 'profit' is an accounting fiction, find something that works."]
While the author mentions "a communist utopia," minimum income programs have often come from market-oriented economists, such as with Milton Friedman's Negative Income Tax, which he proposed as an alternative to a host of disruptive policies including the minimum wage and welfare, and the FairTax proposal, which includes monthly "prebate" checks.
It sound all very positive but I alway have in the back of my mind the possible unintended consequences of regulations and laws intended to alleviate the poor out of poverty. Such examples like mininum wages actually hurt the poor by making them incapable of getting jobs, and the side effect of job training that may result from getting jobs.<p>In other words, the program seem suspect based on previous experience. It seem to produce wonderful result, but I am going to pass on this one and see what will become of Namibian in ten years of time.<p>Alway remember to not only analyze the seen, but also the unseen. It will unmask any hidden grim consequences if any that are hidden on the face of an intervention. Such is the art of analyzing economic interventions.
Although giving money away seems counter-intuitive, when you consider these small sums in the context of abject poverty, it starts to make sense. And then if you look at the current model of large aid grants to often corrupt or inept governments, it makes total sense to instead give the cash directly to the very poor.
As I read it this article highlighted the biggest cause of problem in Nambia: the "rich white farmers".<p>(obviously that's probably not wholly accurate - but the article does not leave them in a good light!)