ترجمه مطبوعاتی-متن سوم

Theeasy way to eradicate poverty

Monday 6March 2017 03.00 EST

Why do poor people make so manybad decisions? It’s a harsh question, but look at the data: poor people borrowmore, save less, smoke more, exercise less, drink more and eat less healthily.Why?

MargaretThatcher once called poverty a “personality defect”. Though not many would goquite so far, the view that there’s something wrong with poor people is notexceptional. To be honest, it was how I thought for a long time. It was only afew years ago that I discovered that everything I thought I knew about povertywas wrong.

It allstarted when I accidently stumbled on a paper by a few American psychologists. Theyhad travelled 8,000 miles, to India, to carry out an experiment with sugar canefarmers. These farmers collect about 60% of their annual income all at once,right after the harvest. This means they are relatively poor one part of theyear and rich the other. The researchers asked the farmers to do an IQ testbefore and after the harvest. What they discovered blew my mind. The farmersscored much worse on the tests before the harvest. The effects of living inpoverty, it tus out, correspond to losing 14 points of IQ. That’s comparableto losing a night’s sleep, or the effects of alcoholism.

A few monthslater I discussed the theory with Eldar Shafir, a professor of behaviouralscience and public policy at Princeton University and one of the authors ofthis study. The reason, put simply: it’s the context, stupid. People behavedifferently when they perceive a thing to be scarce. What that thing is doesn’tmuch matter; whether it’s time, money or food, it all contributes to a“scarcity mentality”. This narrows your focus to your immediate deficiency. Thelong-term perspective goes out of the window. Poor people aren’t making dumbdecisions because they are dumb, but because they’re living in a context inwhich anyone would make dumb decisions.

تا انتهای این پاراگراف ترجمه شود.

Suddenly thereason so many of our anti-poverty programmes don’t work becomes clear.Investments in education, for example, are often completely useless. A recent analysis of 201 studies on theeffectiveness of money management training came tothe conclusion that it makes almost no difference at all. Poor people mightcome out wiser, but it’s not enough. As Shafir said: “It’s like teachingsomeone to swim and then throwing them in a stormy sea.”

So what can be done? Modeeconomists have a few solutions. We could make the paperwork easier, or sendpeople a text message to remind them of their bills. These “nudges” are hugelypopular with mode politicians, because they cost next to nothing. They are asymbol of this era, in which we so often treat the symptoms but ignore thecauses.

I askedShafir: “Why keep tinkering around the edges rather than just handing out moreresources?” “You mean just hand out more money? Sure, that would be great,” hesaid. “But given the evident limitations … the brand of leftwing politics youhave in Amsterdam doesn’t even exist in the States.”

But is this really anold-fashioned, leftist idea? I remembered reading about an old plan, somethingthat has been proposed by some of history’s leading thinkers. Thomas Morehinted at it in Utopia, more than 500 years ago. And itsproponents have spanned the spectrum from the left to the right, from the civilrights campaigner Martin Luther King to the economist Milton Friedman.

It’s anincredibly simple idea: universal basic income – a monthly allowance of enoughto pay for your basic needs: food, shelter, education. And it’s completelyunconditional: not a favour, but a right.

But couldit really be that simple? In the three years that followed, I read all I couldfind about basic income. I researched dozens of experiments that have beenconducted across the globe. And it didn’t take long before I stumbled upon thestory of a town that had done it, had eradicated poverty – after which nearlyeveryone forgot about it.

This story startsin Winnipeg, Canada. Imagine a warehouse attic where nearly 2,000 boxes liegathering dust. They are filled with data – graphs, tables, interviews – aboutone of the most fascinating social experiments ever conducted. Evelyn Forget,an economics professor at the University of Manitoba, first heard about therecords in 2009. Stepping into the attic, she could hardly believe her eyes. Itwas a treasure trove of information on basic income.

The experimenthad started in Dauphin, a town north-west of Winnipeg, in 1974. Everybody wasguaranteed a basic income ensuring that no one fell below the poverty line. Andfor four years, all went well. But then a conservative govement was votedinto power. The new Canadian cabinet saw little point in the expensiveexperiment. So when it became clear there was no money left for an analysis ofthe results, the researchers decided to pack their files away. In 2,000 boxes.

When Forget found them, 30 yearslater, no one knew what, if anything, the experiment had demonstrated. Forthree years she subjected the data to all manner of statistical analysis. Andno matter what she tried, the results were the same every time. The experiment– the longest and best of its kind – had been a resounding success.

Forget discovered that the people in Dauphin had notonly become richer, but also smarter and healthier. The school performance ofchildren improved substantially. The hospitalisation rate decreased by as muchas 8.5%. Domestic violence was also down, as were mental health complaints. Andpeople didn’t quit their jobs – the only ones who worked a little less were newmothers and students, who stayed in school longer.

Sohere’s what I’ve leaed. When it comes to poverty, we should stop pretendingto know better than poor people. The great thing about money is that people canuse it to buy things they need instead of things self-appointed experts thinkthey need. Imagine how many brilliant would-be entrepreneurs, scientists andwriters are now withering away in scarcity. Imagine how much energy and talentwe would unleash if we got rid of poverty once and for all.

While itwon’t solve all the world’s ills – and ideas such as a rent cap and more socialhousing are necessary in places where housing is scarce – a basic income wouldwork like venture capital for the people. We can’t afford not to do it –poverty is hugely expensive. The costs of child poverty in the US are estimated at $500bn (£410bn) each year,in terms of higher healthcare spending, less education and more crime. It’s anincredible waste of potential. It would cost just $175bn, a quarter of thecountry’s current military budget, to do what Dauphin did long ago: eradicatepoverty.

That should be our goal. The timefor small thoughts and little nudges is past. The time has come for new,radical ideas. If this sounds utopian to you, then remember that everymilestone of civilisation – the end of slavery, democracy, equal rights for menand women – was once a utopian fantasy too.

We’ve gotthe research, we’ve got the evidence, and we’ve got the means. Now, 500 yearsafter Thomas More first wrote about basic income, we need to update ourworldview. Poverty is not a lack of character. Poverty isa lack of cash.

Link:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/06/utopian-thinking-poverty-universal-basic-income