[Peace-discuss] "The evidence behind putting money directly in the pockets of the poor", and the UK just made all of their citizens organ donors by default

[J.B. Nicholson]

https://www.organdonation.nhs.uk/uk-laws/organ-donation-law-in-england --

> Organ donation in England has moved to an 'opt out' system. You may also hear it
> referred to as 'Max and Keira's Law'[1]. This means that all adults in England
> will be considered to have agreed to be an organ donor when they die unless they
> have recorded a decision not to donate or are in one of the excluded groups. [2]

[1] 
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/opt-out-organ-donation-max-and-keira-s-bill-passed-into-law

[2]
> These changes will affect all adults in England unless they have recorded a
> decision not to donate or are in one of the following excluded groups:
> 
> * Those under the age of 18
> * People who lack the mental capacity to understand the new arrangements and take
>   the necessary action
> * Visitors to England, and those not living here voluntarily
> * People who have lived in England for less than 12 months before their death"




http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/science-blog/evidence-behind-putting-money-directly-pockets-poor 
-- "The evidence behind putting money directly in the pockets of the poor"

> 12 May 2020
> 
> By Dr Kate Orkin
> 
> COVID-19 and the related government-led lockdowns have resulted in widespread
> economic shock and job loss, in the UK and around the world. Governments,
> including in low and middle-income countries, have responded with economic
> interventions to cushion the shock. The most widely-used government tool has been
> cash transfer programmes: the World Bank finds 234 measures involving expanding
> cash transfer programmes worldwide, as well as 100 food or voucher schemes.
> 
> In the past, some governments have been concerned that transfers would increase
> dependency on the state and, in particular, that cash transfers would not be used
> well because it is hard to monitor how people spend them. Many governments used
> instead to provide food aid or subsidise basic food items.
> 
> So why have governments shifted to using cash in low and middle-income countries?
> 
> In most situations, there is strong evidence that money, not food, is the most
> efficient and effective way to distribute emergency aid and social programmes.
> This particular question, on how poor people use cash transfers, is one of the
> most studied in development economics.
> 
> The finance ministry in Mexico did one of the first conditional cash schemes in
> 1997. To evaluate the programme, they ran a randomised trial. They could not roll
> out the programme all at once, so they randomly selected some communities to
> receive it first and compared them to those who did not. This is a similar process
> to how drugs are tested, but with a social programme. Since then, many countries'
> governments in low and middle income countries have implemented similar studies.
> 
> Poor people spend cash grants well. The bulk of transfers are spent on food
> anyway. For example, a review of 165 studies by the Overseas Development Institute
> found that recipients of cash grants have better dietary diversity and are less
> likely to face food insecurity. A World Bank review found grants improve growth
> and cognitive development in small children. Cash also has the added benefit of
> giving people autonomy to spend on what they need most. It also stops distortions
> arising in local markets, where bringing in free food can lead to price decreases
> that hurt local producers.
> 
> Emergency, fast cash is a smart investment in long-term poverty alleviation
> 
> Numerous studies, from China and India to Ethiopia and Malawi show that economic
> shocks have severe long-term consequences. Poor households often take short-term
> decisions that leave them in deeper long-term poverty. The decision most feared is
> that households reduce children’s nutritional intake. [...]


-J