There's been other similar experiments where folks are given cash instead of benefits and it turns out to be wildly productive. It makes sense that giving direct cash is the most efficient as the...
There's been other similar experiments where folks are given cash instead of benefits and it turns out to be wildly productive.
It makes sense that giving direct cash is the most efficient as the spending on benefit distribution (eg conversion of cash to food, clothes, etc) which then many times get reconverted back to cash illicitly.
By providing cash, the efficiency gains significantly outweigh the cost benefit distribution as people allocate the money to the most pressing priorities.
This, of course, assumes and requires there to be something for disaster victims to spend the money on. I can imagine that, in some natural disasters, the local community would be so badly damaged...
This, of course, assumes and requires there to be something for disaster victims to spend the money on. I can imagine that, in some natural disasters, the local community would be so badly damaged that there would be no nearby stores to buy supplies from. Or, in the case of the debit cards they mentioned, the local telecommunications infrastructure would need to be working for the transactions to be processed.
GiveDirectly talks about "cash benchmarking" for donations. That would have to be kept in mind all the time, to ensure that they're not giving money to people who aren't able to use it anywhere.
Otherwise, it seems like a good idea. For one thing, money is a lot easier to transport than food and blankets and clothing! It reduces administrative overheads and makes the donating more efficient.
Immediately after a disaster, the people affected are going to have to get by with whatever supplies or assistance is nearby. Emergency services use what they already have, so it's mainly about...
Immediately after a disaster, the people affected are going to have to get by with whatever supplies or assistance is nearby. Emergency services use what they already have, so it's mainly about how well they've prepared.
In the US at least, large retailers might also be preparing. I remember reading a story about how Walmart forecasts storms and tries to ship extra supplies in advance.
In the immediate aftermath, getting more stuff there is a matter of logistics. Outside organizations that can respond the fastest will be those that are good at logistics. When it's especially difficult, the military might get called in.
Later when people are rebuilding their lives, stores are open, so sending money should work well. From reading about their pilot program after the Houston hurricane, I suspect that's where GiveDirectly is getting involved.
There's been other similar experiments where folks are given cash instead of benefits and it turns out to be wildly productive.
It makes sense that giving direct cash is the most efficient as the spending on benefit distribution (eg conversion of cash to food, clothes, etc) which then many times get reconverted back to cash illicitly.
By providing cash, the efficiency gains significantly outweigh the cost benefit distribution as people allocate the money to the most pressing priorities.
This, of course, assumes and requires there to be something for disaster victims to spend the money on. I can imagine that, in some natural disasters, the local community would be so badly damaged that there would be no nearby stores to buy supplies from. Or, in the case of the debit cards they mentioned, the local telecommunications infrastructure would need to be working for the transactions to be processed.
GiveDirectly talks about "cash benchmarking" for donations. That would have to be kept in mind all the time, to ensure that they're not giving money to people who aren't able to use it anywhere.
Otherwise, it seems like a good idea. For one thing, money is a lot easier to transport than food and blankets and clothing! It reduces administrative overheads and makes the donating more efficient.
Immediately after a disaster, the people affected are going to have to get by with whatever supplies or assistance is nearby. Emergency services use what they already have, so it's mainly about how well they've prepared.
In the US at least, large retailers might also be preparing. I remember reading a story about how Walmart forecasts storms and tries to ship extra supplies in advance.
In the immediate aftermath, getting more stuff there is a matter of logistics. Outside organizations that can respond the fastest will be those that are good at logistics. When it's especially difficult, the military might get called in.
Later when people are rebuilding their lives, stores are open, so sending money should work well. From reading about their pilot program after the Houston hurricane, I suspect that's where GiveDirectly is getting involved.