Ethical Health Care After Roe - Isaac Chotiner speaks with Louise Perkins King, a surgeon and bioethicist at Harvard and the vice-chair of ethics at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, about how bioethicists think about abortion, how the medical community should approach its own members who are opposed to abortion, and whether it is ever appropriate for medical-care providers to break the law. - link
How Boris Johnson’s Government Finally Collapsed - In twenty-four hours, more than three dozen ministers and aides deserted the Prime Minister. On July 7th, he announced his plan to resign. - link
Abortion Is About Freedom, Not Just Privacy - The right to abortion is an affirmation that women and girls have the right to control their own destiny. - link
How Shinzo Abe Sought to Rewrite Japanese History - Japan’s longest-serving Prime Minister wanted a more assertive place for his country on the international stage—at the expense of atonement and historical accountability. - link
The Self-Fulfilling Prophecies of Clarence Thomas - For decades, Thomas has had a deeply pessimistic view of the country, rooted in his reading of the Fourteenth Amendment. After the Supreme Court’s recent opinions, his dystopia is becoming our reality. - link
An important but overlooked piece of good news about climate change.
A curious trend has emerged in recent years.
Many types of natural disasters are causing greater destruction as populations have grown in floodplains, wildfire zones, and hot climates. More people means more property, which is part of why the number of disasters with billion-dollar damage tolls is on the rise in the United States.
And humans are making many of these disasters more severe by changing the climate. Rising average global temperatures are worsening heat waves and torrential rainfalls, and lifting sea levels.
“Widespread, pervasive impacts to ecosystems, people, settlements, and infrastructure have resulted from observed increases in the frequency and intensity of climate and weather extremes,” the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change wrote in its most recent report.
Yet despite these growing risks, around the world, disasters in general are becoming less deadly. According to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the number of disasters over the last 50 years has increased fivefold, but the number of deaths has fallen by two-thirds.
This is a huge accomplishment — perhaps one of the biggest success stories in modern history — yet it’s easy to overlook. These immense gains are the result of the steady, incremental work of forecasters, planners, architects, engineers, and policymakers rather than any single innovation. And the main metric is averted losses, something that’s often hard to appreciate and tricky to value.
Nevertheless, some world leaders are paying attention and want to carry these advances further. In particular, the United Nations and the WMO are launching a $1.5 billion program to ensure that everyone on Earth is covered by a disaster early warning system over the next five years. The WMO didn’t specify the details of the program, however, and didn’t respond to requests for comment.
“Early warnings and action save lives,” said UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres in March. “We must boost the power of prediction for everyone and build their capacity to act.”
As countries like the US stare down another summer filled with wildfires, floods, and heat waves — and with the world likely to overshoot climate change targets — saving lives from disasters is a paramount priority. The past century shows that steady progress adds up, but we can’t take this for granted, because climate change is driving up disaster risks and it will take a coherent strategy to counter them.
The downward trend in deaths from natural disasters is something to behold. In the early 20th century, annual deaths from disasters sometimes topped a million. By the 1970s, fatalities fell to roughly 100,000 per year, and in the current decade, to half or less of that number. There have been some years that bucked this trend over the last century as particularly severe disasters struck, but the overall decline holds. And keep in mind that there were just 2 billion people in the world in 1900, compared to 7.8 billion today.
Two main factors have saved lives even among increasingly dangerous disasters and growing populations: better forecasting and a greater ability to cope with storms, floods, fires, and heat waves when they do occur.
Disaster prediction has seen dramatic improvements, especially in the era of weather satellites and vastly more powerful computers. For example, the National Hurricane Center can now project the path of a hurricane 72 hours in advance. In 1990, the center could only make such a prediction 24 hours ahead of a storm, and with less accuracy. Now consider that according to the WMO, having 24 hours of warning ahead of a storm reduces damages by 30 percent. Two additional days of lead time and a more precise storm path is a massive improvement that has helped even more people get out of harm’s way.
Forecasters have also extended their lead time for extreme weather like heat waves and severe rainfall, as well as longer-term phenomena like seasonal rainfall or expected cyclone activity in a given year. This allows officials to issue warnings for disasters and prepare for other problems, like famine.
Even for disasters that have multiple intersecting factors, namely wildfires, researchers are getting better at anticipating when the next blazes will erupt. In the US, the National Interagency Fire Center publishes seasonal fire outlooks that can help officials allocate firefighting teams and conduct preventative maintenance.
And when fires do ignite, modelers can factor in weather, geography, and vegetation to predict not just the flames, but other associated impacts.
“If you had a decent idea of what was going to occur in terms of how flammable a particular region is, you could use that information to develop forecasts of what you would expect in terms of something like smoke impacts downwind,” said Matthew Hurteau, a biology professor at the University of New Mexico who studies forest fires and climate.
This smoke projection from the High-Resolution Rapid Refresh computer model depicts heavy smoke from the #WashburnFire impacting Wawona and Yosemite National Park this afternoon. #CAwx #Firewx pic.twitter.com/yqzwv5x1j1
— NWS Hanford (@NWSHanford) July 8, 2022
On the other hand, hard-to-predict disasters are still a potent threat. Tornadoes, for instance, form and dissipate rapidly and are difficult to detect with radars and satellites. Tornado research still depends on observers on the ground. So tornado warnings haven’t improved in the same way as hurricane forecasts. According to the National Weather Service, more than half of tornado warnings are false alarms. As a result, tornadoes remain some of the deadliest weather phenomena in the US.
Geological disasters like earthquakes and volcanic eruptions are even more difficult to predict. Even so, scientists have improved their understanding of where such events will occur, and while they have lead times measured in minutes, parts of the world now have earthquake early warning systems. Better earthquake detection and warnings have also improved tsunami warning systems.
The issue is that the places in the world with the most robust forecasting and alert programs for disasters are often the wealthiest regions. Between 1970 and 2019, more than 91 percent of all weather and climate-related deaths occurred in developing countries, according to the WMO. Only half of the world’s countries have early warning systems in place for multiple hazards, and across regions like Africa, Latin America, and island countries, there are large gaps in weather and climate observations.
So building up disaster warning systems for everyone in the world, and doing so in five years, is a monumental task. “It is a wildly ambitious goal but an important one,” Samantha Montano, an assistant professor of emergency management at the Massachusetts Maritime Academy, said in an email.
Despite the epochal scale and devastation of events like hurricanes and wildfires, it can be surprisingly difficult to grapple with the full extent of their impacts. One can add up the casualties when the ground is shaking, the wind is blowing, and the rain is falling, but how many deaths and injuries in the aftermath of the event should be added to the tally?
And when it comes to “natural” disasters, it can be difficult to separate which impacts are from forces of nature and which ones stem from human causes, like construction in high-risk areas or a poor disaster response.
“Historically, indirect deaths have been either not tracked at all or very poorly tracked,” Montano said.
Look at the list of deadliest hurricanes in the US and you’ll notice that most of them were decades ago, with some more than a century in the past. There are a couple conspicuous outliers, however. Hurricane Katrina in 2005, a category 5 storm with winds topping 175 miles per hour, officially killed around 1,800 people. Hurricane Maria in 2017, also category 5, killed more than 3,000. But the true toll of these disasters was likely much greater.
While the storms themselves were exceptionally severe, both hurricanes had long tails of destruction. Hurricane Katrina and the subsequent collapse of levees in New Orleans led to flooding and road blockages that lasted more than 40 days. In the wake of Hurricane Maria, Puerto Rico suffered the largest blackout in US history, leaving residents without power for vital medical devices, refrigerators, and lighting for months.
Warnings may have helped some people avoid the acute elements of the storms, but much of the devastation from these disasters came in their aftermath, stemming from failures to prepare and respond.
“The theory is with better warnings, you should see a reduction [in deaths], and in many cases we do. But then you factor in socioeconomics, and even with warnings, you may still have the death tolls that are very high,” said Craig Fugate, who led the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) under President Barack Obama.
Disaster warnings don’t eliminate the events themselves, and there are wide disparities in who is equipped to evacuate ahead of a disaster and who has the resources to resume their lives in its wake.
For example, in the US, heat waves are the deadliest weather phenomenon. But even with warnings, there is little to do about them besides seeking air conditioning. Access to cooling, however, varies greatly with income and location. The risks can be managed or reduced, but not everyone has access to those tools; the worst effects often fall on the poorest.
Clearly, warnings are not enough on their own to reduce fatalities. People also need the means to act on those warnings.
With climate change, many weather-related disasters are getting pushed toward greater extremes, so even places that once could readily endure storms, floods, and fires are struggling to cope. History is no longer a useful guide. “As we keep seeing record-setting events occurring, looking backward isn’t preparing us,” Fugate said.
Saving more lives thus demands a more comprehensive assessment of the threats that lie ahead and of tactics to deal with them. That could entail more access to air conditioning to cope with heat waves, tougher building codes to help withstand earthquakes, better fire-resistant construction for housing, and stronger seawalls in coastal areas. In some areas, it may require people to move away from areas prone to severe fires or flooding. Reducing emissions of the gases heating up the planet is critical as well.
Even in countries with forecasting systems in place, there is still plenty of room for improvement. While researchers can anticipate the path of a hurricane, they still struggle to predict its intensity, a major factor in its destructive potential.
These are all expensive interventions with huge political implications, but without them, some of the progress in saving lives could stall or reverse. “If we continue on the current path of doing relatively minimal mitigation and preparedness at the same time that we see an increase in risk then, yes, it is possible to see an increase in deaths over time.” Montano said.
And while fewer people are dying, the economic costs of disasters are mounting. In 2021, the US experienced 20 separate weather and climate disasters that cost more than $1 billion.
The rising damage tolls are a result of having more people and property in the paths of dangerous weather events, as such events increase in severity. Costly disasters are a major concern for the economy and the global insurance industry.
Keeping global warming in check is an overwhelming task, but it should not be a cause for despair or complacency. The success in reducing disaster-related deaths shows that there are effective ways to mitigate some of the worst effects of climate change. Closing the gaps in warnings and building up disaster response systems should be an urgent priority and an obligation, particularly for the countries, like the US, that contributed the most to the problem.
Entrenched corruption and a political dynasty may keep them in power, though
Sri Lanka’s ongoing political and economic crises once again reached a fever pitch as thousands of protesters gathered on Saturday and some stormed the president’s house and offices.
Sri Lanka’s president, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, has apparently agreed to step down July 13, although he has not yet personally confirmed the announcement made by the speaker of parliament, as he is reportedly in hiding. Following the speaker’s announcement, protesters also set fire to Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe’s residence, who also stated he was resigning after just months on the job. Neither he nor Rajapaksa were present when the residences were breached, according to the BBC, and photos show several protesters floating in the president’s outdoor pool.
Rajapaksa, the scion of a Sri Lankan political family, was elected in 2019, and although he didn’t exactly cause the nation’s economic problems, conditions have deteriorated significantly under his leadership; critical shortages of basic necessities like fuel, medicine, and food ignited the protests which have apparently toppled his administration and, for now, the Rajapaksa dynasty.
Wickremesinghe, who joined Rajapaksa’s administration in May after the previous prime minister, Mahinda Rajapaksa — a brother of the current president — resigned the post following violent protests over Sri Lanka’s dire economic circumstances. Sri Lanka has defaulted on payments of its foreign loans— which presently total about $51 billion — for the first time in its history. That’s exacerbating the turmoil that successive crises have caused for the country’s tourism industry in recent years, including a series of attacks on churches in 2019, as well as the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic and Russia’s war in Ukraine.
Although Parliamentary Speaker Mahinda Abeywardena announced Saturday that the president would resign “to ensure a peaceful transition,” that won’t take effect immediately, and further chaos and violence could occur before the July 13 transition date — not to mention the risk that both the president and prime minister could find a way to cling to power in that time.
“So the president communicated through the Speaker that he would abide by anything that was agreed at the party leader’s meeting which occurred today,” Nishan de Mel, the executive director of Verité Research, a think tank based in Colombo, told Al Jazeera English Saturday. “And at the party leader’s meeting, everyone except the prime minister, of course, said that both the president and the prime minister must leave their positions with immediate effect.” However, the prime minister hasn’t yet set a date for his departure, and the president’s is still days away.
“Still a ways to go. 4 days is a LONG time in #SriLanka politics,” Alan Keenan, a researcher focusing on Sri Lankan politics at the International Crisis Group, tweeted Saturday.
Still a ways to go. 4 days is a LONG time in #SriLanka politics. https://t.co/IQIOXcJW1a
— Alan Keenan (@akeenan23) July 9, 2022
The current Rajapaksa administration failed to contain the fallout from recent crises and other long-brewing economic problems, which hampered the government’s ability to supplement its already-dwindling foreign currency reserves. Then, last year, the government banned the import of chemical fertilizer, ostensibly to protect the foreign currency it had on hand; instead, the ban laid waste to the nation’s rice and tea industries, causing the government to spend more importing food than it had saved from the fertilizer ban, Keenan told the Sydney Morning Herald in June. And without the foreign currency that the now-struggling tourism industry used to provide, the government could no longer import the basics that people need to survive.
Those struggles — the church attacks, Covid-19, the gutted tourism industry, low taxes, the fertilizer ban, and, of course, the Russian invasion of Ukraine and attendant fuel crisis — would be more than enough on their own. But the Rajapaksa family’s propensity toward policy failures, corruption, and overly-ambitious infrastructure projects is nothing new, and set in motion the circumstances that brought Sri Lanka’s economy to its knees.
Before there was President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, there was President Mahinda Rajapaksa — the same brother that, until May 9, served as Sri Lanka’s prime minister before protesters chased him out of the job and out of his estate, Temple Trees. Under Mahinda, Sri Lanka took on several costly infrastructure projects including a cricket stadium and the Hambantota International Port. China lent billions to Sri Lanka under Mahinda to finance projects including the port; however, Sri Lanka’s government agreed to allow a Chinese state-run creditor to control a majority stake of the port as part of their debt repayment in 2017.
Now, Gotabaya said in an interview in June, China’s proving less willing to loan to Sri Lanka so the government can import basic goods. “My analysis is that China has shifted their strategic focus into Southeast Asia,” he said at the time. “They see more strategic interest in Philippines, Vietnam and Cambodia, that region, and Africa.” That sentiment, of course denies his own government’s role in China’s waning interest in assisting Sri Lanka, making that reluctance about shifting priorities rather than Gotabaya and his administration failing to meet its creditor’s demands for financial solvency and economic stability.
The president’s refusal to take responsibility for the economic crisis also meant that he delayed requesting assistance from the International Monetary Fund and others to help restructure Sri Lanka’s debts and bail out the country, prolonging the economic crisis — which has now become a political crisis.
Now, with the potential end of the current Rajapaksa administration, it’s unclear exactly how Sri Lanka will emerge from the unprecedented economic crisis it’s currently facing. Talks with the IMF last month, while apparently fruitful, failed to produce a plan to right the economy and put it on a stable path forward; political instability could potentially thwart continuing discussions.
While Both Rajapaksa and Wickremesinghe have agreed to go following a decision by parliament urging them both to resign office effective immediately, they could delay in an attempt to hang on to power. Rajapaksa has allegedly agreed to leave by July 13 and Wickremesinghe hasn’t set a date and there’s not actually a guarantee that they’ll do so, according to Keenan. “All those in power & close to it in #SriLanka, with v few exceptions, care only about playing the angles, buying time, almost never about the public interest,” he tweeted Saturday. “This is why so many demand ‘system change.’”
.@NCdeMel on Ranil “buying time”: promising, like Gotabaya, to resign soon.
— Alan Keenan (@akeenan23) July 9, 2022
All those in power & close to it in #SriLanka, with v few exceptions, care only about playing the angles, buying time, almost never about the public interest. This is why so many demand “system change”. https://t.co/MzzRrWbbTQ
De Mel told Al Jazeera English that, “If you look at the prime minister’s history of leadership of his own party, in the last 20 years every time they’ve lost an election — and they have lost many — the prime minister, within his party, has promised to step down, provided there is consensus in the rest of the party ranks about an alternative leader.” Now, de Mel said, Wickremesinghe at least may be trying, “to buy time, and to not actually defer to the enormous call of society and people to resign. So I think it is very clear that it is a tried and tested, cynical tactic that is being presented as an excuse to remain.”
Additionally, the New York Times has reported incidents of state violence against protesters, with 42 people injured after run-ins with state security forces, and four journalists with a Sri Lankan television station attacked outside the prime minister’s residence by security forces. On Saturday. the police had used water cannons and tear gas against protesters, and had reportedly fired shots into the air to attempt to disperse the crowds.
Should Rajapaksa and Wickremesinghe actually end up leaving office, it’s not clear that the Rajapaksa political dynasty will end with Gotabaya. Mahinda’s son, Namal, served in his uncle’s cabinet until this year and still serves in parliament; Basil Rajapaksa, a brother of the president, was the finance minister in his brother’s administration and according to some insiders effectively ran the country during its economic spiral. He resigned his post June 9, but even then, he told reporters, “I cannot and will not step away from politics.”
New studies raise questions about the full effect of direct cash payments. But the real need is research on how to make such programs more politically feasible.
I’m a big fan of cash. Like most of you, I’m pro-people-giving-me-cash, but more generally I think handing out unrestricted currency, whether in paper or digital form, is an underrated and efficient way to help people.
As we’ve covered at Future Perfect, evaluations of cash programs have found that they can function as economic stimulus in one of the poorest regions of Kenya, help a therapy program reduce crime in Liberia, reduce homelessness in Vancouver, fight hunger in areas with food crises, and slash child poverty in the US.
With great enthusiasm comes great responsibility, though — specifically, responsibility to highlight evidence and research that challenges my existing beliefs, even ones that seem as obvious as “getting cash is good.” Recent days have seen the release of three big studies of cash transfers in the US, and those studies found the transfers did … very little.
The first two studies come from the same team, composed of the University of Michigan’s Brian Jacob, Natasha Pilkauskas, Katherine Richard, and Luke Shaefer, and Elizabeth Rhodes of OpenResearch, a lab running a separate long-term cash study. Their papers analyze two different rounds of $1,000 cash grants from the charity GiveDirectly, which distributed the money to American households in May 2020 and again in October that year. The money was targeted at low-income people, with recipients recruited from a mobile app that helps users manage their SNAP/food stamps benefits.
After surveying recipients, as well as a control group of non-recipients, the researchers found no differences between the two groups on any of the five outcomes they were interested in: material hardship, mental health challenges, partner conflict, child behavior problems, and parenting problems.
In the study covering the May 2020 payments, they did find some reduction in material hardship among very low-income households specifically, and some weak evidence that mental health improved. But that was about it. And in October, there weren’t even those silver linings — even in the subgroups, no significant effects were found.
The third study comes from a different team (Harvard’s Ania Jaroszewicz and Jon Jachimowicz and the University of Exeter’s Oliver Hauser and Julian Jamison) and has a slightly different design: their paper analyzed a cash payment program where 1,374 recipients got $500, 699 recipients got $2,000, and a control group got nothing. The median household receiving money earned $1,028 a month or $12,336 a year, below the poverty line for a single person, much less for a family. Like the Michigan researchers’ papers, the funds were disbursed slightly after the pandemic started, but in this case the transfers were made gradually: from July 2020 to May 2021.
(Side note: The paper states that the transfers were funded by “a national non-profit organization that specializes in providing low-income individuals unrestricted cash transfers.” In an email, Jaroszewicz stated that the funder wished to remain anonymous.)
The Harvard/Exeter team came to the same conclusion as the Michigan team: the authors found “no evidence that [cash] had positive impacts on our pre-specified survey outcomes at any time point.” If anything, they found negative outcomes for recipients’ reported financial, medical, and psychological well-being — though the authors argue that this is likely due to study attrition, and are careful to limit their conclusion to “cash did nothing positive” rather than “cash caused harm.”
So … what the hell happened? Why didn’t giving very low-income Americans as much as $2,000 lead to them reporting greater financial security, better mental health, even just being happier?
The Harvard/Exeter team posits an interesting reason: getting the money reminded recipients that they were poor, without doing much to change that long-term condition, which in turn led to worse psychological health and lower happiness among recipients. Recipients reported thinking more about money, reported more financial needs in their life, and were likelier to say they were stressed about how to spend the money than people who didn’t get the money. This points to the checks raising the “salience” of people’s financial needs, which in turn caused them distress.
Both teams of researchers bring up survey attrition as a possible explanation: it was common for both recipients and control group members to decline to complete the follow-up surveys, and it was possible that those who didn’t complete the surveys differed systematically from those who did, in ways that affected the results. This is the same kind of problem that led to US electoral polls in 2016 and 2020 being wildly off.
There’s also the fact that 2020, as you may dimly recall, was a weird time. This isn’t just because there was an ongoing pandemic with no vaccine yet, accompanied by severe isolation that significantly affected people’s mental and physical health. Thanks to unprecedented federal actions, low-income Americans were also in an unusually good financial situation.
In all three studies, recipients had gotten stimulus checks worth $1,200 per adult and $500 per child just a few months before. Some of the recipients in the Harvard/Exeter study also received the December 2020 checks worth $600 each and the March 2021 checks worth $1,400 each. Many recipients in all three studies likely benefited from greatly enhanced unemployment insurance payments. UI recipients had median incomes much lower than the general population, especially recipients through the new Pandemic Unemployment Assistance program, making the program highly progressive.
It seems plausible that another one-off payment didn’t register the same way amid much larger federal interventions — especially the UI benefit which offered regular infusions of cash.
And moreover, the US is a rich country! It was, ironically, given the conditions, an unusually prosperous place for low-income people in 2020. If you want to compare GiveDirectly’s cash transfers in the US to those in extremely poor villages in sub-Saharan Africa, the enormous gap in economic outcomes in the two places is very relevant.
The Harvard/Exeter authors note that the $2,000 checks they studied represented about 16 percent of the typical recipient’s annual household income. By contrast, the landmark 2016 paper studying GiveDirectly’s program in Kenya involved a transfer equal to about two years’ worth of household consumption (a number not too different from income, among low-income people without much savings or access to formal loans). A check worth 200 percent of your annual income is obviously very different from one worth 16 percent! Of course the former would have stronger effects.
We also might be getting to a point of diminishing returns on what we can learn from studies of one-time cash drops, especially when the outcome variables of interest are the usual suspects of financial, mental, and physical well-being.
Cash programs have been studied a lot. In 2016, the UK-based Overseas Development Institute (ODI) think tank conducted an evidence review on cash programs that looked at an astonishing 165 different studies. That was six years ago, and the evidence base has only grown since with the vast number of basic income pilots around the world, as well as one-off cash programs like the ones studied above.
You can draw a few conclusions from the vastness of the evidence base on cash. One is that a handful of new studies shouldn’t massively change your views on the topic. If there were only one prior paper anywhere in the world studying a cash drop like those described above, a single new study would double the evidence base. It would be a big deal and should adjust your views substantially. But going from 165 to 166 studies isn’t a radical change.
Secondly, it’s worth asking if the research community is focusing resources toward the most important questions remaining about cash. The ODI report concluded that, on average, cash has a number of beneficial effects in terms of reducing poverty, building assets, and improving health. There may be diminishing returns in rich countries with extensive safety nets, as detailed in the new studies above. But overall the evidence that giving people money reduces deprivation is strong.
Adding nuances to this story, like the point at which diminishing returns set in, is important, and if a group is doing transfers anyway, as seemed to be the case with GiveDirectly, you might as well run a study of the effort alongside it.
But there are major unanswered questions about cash that don’t have nearly this much evidence behind them. Do people, for instance, fare better (on any number of metrics) if they get a large lump sum or if they get smaller monthly payments? Does the method of payment (check v. mobile app v. prepaid debit card) matter? Does knowledge of where the money comes from, whether from the government or a charity or a subnational arm of government, matter? What are the macroeconomic effects of a large cash program? I know of only one major randomized study on the latter question, but it’s very important, and something that ordinary random studies can’t elucidate.
Perhaps the biggest question outstanding about cash programs is about their political economy: if cash programs are, on the merits, often superior to programs giving aid in-kind (in the form of housing or food or what have you), why are they comparatively rare? Why don’t politicians like passing them? Why do programs like the expanded child tax credit in the US fail in legislatures, while efforts like the UK Tories’ to slash cash benefits in 2012 succeeded?
The longtime DC safety-net policy analyst Robert Greenstein has a new paper looking at some of these questions. He tries to locate factors that explain whether a government safety-net program grew or shrank in the US over the last 40 years. Programs tied to work and that extend to the middle class as well as the poor do better; so do ones that are federally funded and administered.
But one key factor is that successful growing programs “provide benefits either in-kind or through the tax code rather than as straight cash,” as Greenstein writes. Programs for the elderly or disabled are an exception to this rule, but generally “straight cash” is bad for a program’s survival. Look at the demise of Aid to Families with Dependent Children, a cash welfare program ended in 1997, and the relative flourishing of food stamps, just as one example.
Greenstein’s paper is not the only one analyzing these questions (see Yale’s Zachary Liscow and Abigail Pershing’s recent study showing in-kind programs are more popular among Americans than cash ones). But this is a line of research that’s crucially important for the fate of cash and has much less in the way of resources behind it than studies looking at cash’s direct effects on recipients.
Again, I’m appreciative of new research on cash’s immediate effects. The three studies above certainly complicated my views a bit. But for people interested in cash programs, they’re the beginning, not the end, of the road. To make progress, the research agenda has to move forward a bit, from what cash does to how to make cash happen.
A version of this story was initially published in the Future Perfect newsletter. Sign up here to subscribe!
Goa cannot host National Games before December, says Goa Sports Minister Govind Gaude - Indian Olympics Association (IOA) had asked the Goa government to host the National Games from September 6 to 16
Rajini and Balappa clinch fourth straight victory - Ahamed wins a thriller
Football transfer news | Raheem Sterling signs for Chelsea; Vinicius Jr. extends Real Madrid contract; and more - After starting his senior career with Liverpool, Sterling moved to City in July 2015 and established himself as a regular in their frontline, netting 131 times in 337 games for Pep Guardiola’s side
Yuki-Saketh pair wins third Challenger of the season - Puts it across top-seeded Borges-Cabral duo in Portugal
Govt. bats for India XI vs World XI cricket match on Aug. 22 as part of I-Day celebrations, writes to BCCI - While it is yet to be confirmed, the match, if conducted, is likely to be held at Delhi's Feroz Shah Kotla ground
India stands with people of Sri Lanka: MEA - “We are aware of the many challenges that Sri Lanka and its people have been facing.”
Udaipur tailor killing | NIA arrests seventh person - Farhad Mohammad Sheikh a ‘close criminal associate’ of Riyaz Akhtari
Hopes of finding survivors in Amarnath flash floods fading - “We are still hopeful but anyone still alive under that debris will be a miracle,” a State Disaster Response Force (SDRF) official said
TMC claims Mamata not invited to Sealdah Metro station inauguration; BJP calls it ‘taste of its own medicine’ - Commercial services between Sector V in Salt Lake and Sealdah in Kolkata are set to commence on July 14
Congress’ new found aggression in its communication strategy - ‘Every single day. And every word you say. Every game you play. We’ll be watching you,’ new head of the media and publicity wing Pawan Khera tells the media in a tweet
Russian rockets kill 15 in Chasiv Yar housing block, Ukraine says - Many are also feared to be trapped in the rubble of the apartment block in eastern Ukraine.
RAF fighter jets deploy to Sweden and Finland training exercises - Six fighters, including two of the latest F-35s, fly to the prospective Nato members for joint exercises.
Russia-Ukraine war: Moscow politician gets 7 years for denouncing war - Councillor Alexei Gorinov gets reportedly the first jail term under a law criminalising dissent.
Sepp Blatter and Michel Platini found not guilty following fraud trial - Former Fifa president Sepp Blatter and vice-president Michel Platini have been found not guilty following their fraud trial.
Italians wait for rain where longest river runs dry - Farmers in the north fear for the future as the River Po runs dry in the worst drought in 70 years.
“Downright nasty” weather couldn’t stop the 100th Pikes Peak hillclimb - Some drivers dare to scale the summit in unique, vintage beasts. - link
Meta removes Facebook account mandate from Quest VR—but is that enough? - Op-ed: I welcome the removal of FB-VR mandate, but ToS still has me concerned. - link
Yet another omicron subvariant is raising concern as BA.5 sweeps the US - BA.2.75 is spreading quickly and widely. Three cases detected in US so far. - link
Musk ends bid to buy Twitter [Updated] - Elon Musk’s buyer’s remorse could be very expensive. - link
Google proposes moving ad business to Alphabet to keep regulators at bay - But is there any demonstrable difference between Google and parent company Alphabet? - link
The young son came back to the tent and said, “Wow, Mom! You should see some of those girls. They’ve got these HUGE…”
“Yes, well,” his mother sniffs. “The larger they are, the dumber the woman.”
Next day the boy comes back to the tent again. “You wouldn’t believe some of the guys out there. They have these HUGE…”
“Yes, well, like I said, the bigger they are, the dumber the man.”
“Really?” the boy said, frowning with puzzlement. “We might be in trouble, Mom.”
“Why, honey?”
"Because Dad’s out there talking to a really stupid girl, and he’s getting dumber by the minute.
submitted by /u/ChonkyHuskey2173
[link] [comments]
“Do not be frightened,” said Satan. “I have an offer to make. I will make you tremendously powerful, famous and rich in return for just one small favour: half of your ability to hear.”
The priest was stunned. “Let me think about it for a few days.”
The next morning, the priest requested to meet the bishop. “Your Excellency, I need your advice for a temptation I have been given!” He told over his strange encounter. The bishop was shocked. “A deal with Satan?! Do not do it, it will destroy your soul!”
But he could see the priest was not convinced. So the bishop arranged a meeting with the archbishop. “Your Excellency, this priest has an urgent matter he needs advice about!” He told over the story. The archbishop bowed his head in silent prayer, and after a few moments responded. “Firstly, your hearing is a gift from God. It would be forbidden to sacrifice any part of it. Secondly, a deal with Satan?!? Never do it!”
But the priest wasn’t convinced. He was imagining all the wealth, fame and power he’d receive. So the archbishop requested an audience with the Pope.
The three of them came into the Papal office in great awe. They sat, and the archbishop spoke. “Your Holiness, this priest has a terrible temptation and needs advice!”
“Sorry, could you speak a little louder?” Asked the Pope.
submitted by /u/ExtraSure
[link] [comments]
Told him I know a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy
submitted by /u/yer–mum
[link] [comments]
The young Grandson looks over at his 18 year old newlywed wife and asks her, “Will you pass the honey, honey?” She giggles and passes the honey.
His father, not to be outdone, looks over to his beautiful wife and asks, “Will you pass the sugar, sugar?” She laughs, “Your still a charmer,” and passes the sugar.
The Grandfather looks up, makes eye contact with his wife of 55 years and asks, “Will you pass the tea… bag?”
submitted by /u/RockIngChairDad
[link] [comments]
… The American Supreme Court has been Ruthless.
submitted by /u/Molto_Ritardando
[link] [comments]