Introduction
The approach to poverty reduction of providing direct payments to people in need is a debated topic nowadays; therefore, the goal of this paper is to examine and evaluate the effectiveness of this solution. Despite the existence of a broad spectrum of welfare programs aimed at reducing poverty levels, statistics prove that a great number of households with children still live below the poverty line. This fact demands reconsideration of the existing measures to address the problem and the design of more efficient programs. In this context, the practice of direct payments, to be used at people’s own discretion, can potentially improve the situation by addressing the causes of poverty.
Poverty Statistics
The problem of poverty is a serious social concern for the US that demands a thorough examination of its multifaceted nature to design the most effective measures. Even though the country has a vast welfare system to support people in need, such as SNAP and TANF, poverty is still persistent. Namely, according to Santhanam (2021), more than 50 million people experienced hunger in 2020, and nearly 9.6 million children were affected by hunger. Moreover, as estimated, 60% of the population aged 20–75 may experience episodic poverty during their lifetimes. These statistics illustrate that poverty can affect people with different backgrounds and suggest that various factors contribute to its prevalence.
Historical and Current Efforts in Addressing Poverty
Historically, existing policies mainly regarded it as an individual problem rather than a systemic issue. For instance, as explained by Gowan (2010), the neoliberalist approach would argue that the root of poverty lies in people themselves because they lack the desire to take responsibility for their lives, choose not to work, or have certain medical issues. Such medicalization and demonization of the homeless and poor have several consequences for solving the problem of poverty.
First, it conditions the appearance of paternalistic approaches to helping people that allow the government to decide how people must spend their money or what amenities they can access (Santhanam, 2021). Second, it continues the stigma regarding people who rely on welfare by excluding the socioeconomic roots of the problem. These factors play a role in shaping policies to reduce poverty and in shaping public acceptance of these policies.
A solution described in the article by Santhanam (2021) is to help people in need by providing direct monthly payments as a cushion against poverty. Those who are deemed eligible for such assistance would receive a set amount of money on a monthly basis, which they can use at their discretion. Their goal is to help individuals meet their basic needs so they can focus on what they want to achieve and take action to improve their lives in the long term. A similar practice demonstrated its effectiveness in Canada, New Zealand, and some U.S. states, where pilot programs were launched. In all the described cases, people improved their financial stability, and child poverty rates decreased.
Giving direct payments to people can be considered an effective measure because it addresses the root of the problem rather than merely controlling the outcomes. As discussed during lessons, America still faces high poverty rates, which proves that the existing policies and programs fail. One reason is their irrelevance in helping people find a way out of their financial situation.
For example, TANF cannot lift families out of poverty because it requires individuals to perform mandatory low-skilled work. Still, it cannot address the problems that led them into poverty. On the other hand, direct payments would provide financial stability for the time needed to take actions to improve well-being.
Thus, the solution is good because it proposes distancing from the paternalistic model of responding to poverty and focusing on helping people regain their self-sufficiency. Santhanam (2021) provides examples of people who managed to focus on achieving their goals even after the burden of fighting for survival was removed. Similarly, in her book Maid, Land (2020) shares that she was obliged to attend so-called lessons on how to reduce household expenditures. Still, they were indeed useless for teaching valuable skills. However, being able to spend money at one’s discretion, people could use it for education relevant to their goals and take responsibility for their lives.
Overall, although the suggested solution has many benefits, certain implications must be considered. Firstly, it would be necessary to change the public opinion about the initiative and show by example that the poor and homeless should not be stigmatized as criminals or addicts. Secondly, there is a need to design inclusion criteria that are just and well-thought-out, to mitigate the risk of abuse of the financial support. In this way, the solution can be considered complete until new empirical data appear and reveal its drawbacks after years of operation.
Conclusion
The problem of poverty is still persistent in the US, even though several welfare programs exist. Partially, their insufficiency can be a result of a paternalistic approach that denies opportunities for personal growth for those who face poverty. Although highly debated and not popular in American society, addressing poverty by providing people in need with direct payments can be a good solution, as it aims to eradicate the factors contributing to poverty rather than managing only its outcomes. By analyzing families’ goals and providing support in achieving them, it is possible to reduce the prevalence of the problem.
References
Gowan, T. (2010). Hobos, hustlers, and backsliders: Homeless in San Francisco. U of Minnesota Press.
Land, S. (2020). Maid: Hard Work, Low Pay, and a Mother’s Will to Survive. TRAPEZE.
Santhanam, L. (2021). Why the U.S. is rethinking its approach to poverty. PBS News.