Issue 4: How to be an Effective Altruist: Just give money to the poor!

Effective altruism meets cash transfers in this week’s post, discover how smart aid can empower communities and reshape global development!

What if the most effective way to fight poverty was simply giving people money? Well, according to Hulme et al., giving money to the poor through social transfer programs (or cash transfer programs) can lead people out of the poverty trap. They state that many people are trapped in poverty because they have so little money that they cannot buy things they know they need, such as medication, schoolbooks, food, or fertilisers. “They are in a hole with no way to climb out: cash transfers provide a ladder.”

It should be no surprise that my first post on international development is me trying to persuade you why you should become an effective altruist and shoving my need-to-know interest in Cash Transfer Programs (CTPs) down your throat. Trust me, I think if you stick around long enough, you just might get on board with it too! I find the idea of CTPs so interesting that when I started learning and writing about it, I didn’t think there were many others discussing it in a day-to-day context (or maybe I just wasn’t paying attention). The idea of international development is that it aims to address global disparities and improve the well-being of people in economically disadvantaged regions. It encompasses efforts to combat poverty, promote sustainable growth, enhance living conditions, and ensure equity worldwide ideas that are synonymous with effective altruism and CTPs. This topic is so important to me, and I hope that through these blog posts it can be important to you as well.

Images sourced from Google.

What is Development?

Okay, so, because I promised that I would explain and teach things in a very simplistic way, let’s start off by defining the term “development.” This is a tricky one because, shocker, there are many definitions; but I think the most important (in my opinion) are Sen and Chang’s definitions. According to Amartya Sen in his book Development as Freedom, he lays the foundation for his argument that development should be understood as an expansion of human freedoms and sees economic development as a means to an end (which simply means that he views economic development as a tool to achieve developmental goals but not the only tool for development). He argues that development requires the removal of unfreedoms including, but not limited to, things like poverty, tyranny, poor economic opportunities, and systemic social deprivation, such as neglect of public facilities.

On the other hand, in Ha-Joon Chang’s essay Hamlet Without the Prince of Denmark: How Development Has Disappeared from today’s “development” Discourse, in the book: Towards New Developmentalism: Market as Means rather than Master by Routledge and Abingdon he argues that development has disappeared from today’s development discourse. He states that today development has come to mean poverty reduction, provision of basic needs, individual betterment, and the sustenance of existing productive structures, hardly what development meant in the traditional sense. It’s important to note that Chang is an economist; thus, he believes that development is achieved by upgrading a country's productivity. He states that the emphasis on individual capabilities and entrepreneurial energy in today’s mainstream development discourse is largely misleading.

It is important to note that while Sen and Chang’s ideas of development may differ, they are paramount to our understanding of the concept. Although Sen’s ideas are highly critiqued; some argue that his concept of development is too abstract and eliminates the idea of community or collective need; while some critiques of Chang’s ideas suggest that he lays too much emphasis on state intervention. I don’t believe these two ideas exist in isolation but rather need each other for development to prosper, which I will shed more light on in another post.

With that being said, you may (or most likely may not) ask yourself: What is effective altruism? And how is it synonymous with development and CTPs?

My Journey: Seeking the Perfect Honours Thesis Topic

In my search to find the perfect honours thesis topic that would transform the world and put my name on the global stage, I spent the summer of 2022 working on the first half of my honours thesis (dissertation) with professor Briggs (my research supervisor, who I mention every time I talk about my research) while also working full time and taking another course in women’s studies. Before the winter semester of that year ended, we had come up with a course of our own, with a reading list and essays I had to hand in for grading every three weeks, and for my final summer essay, I had to write a 3000–3500 word piece on how I think Professor Briggs should spend $1,000, using everything I had learned from our class over the summer. We had discussed in our first meeting my research interest and how I was leaning towards an international development topic rather than politics (because, as we all know, I was really over politics).

During that summer semester, I read a book titled Doing Good Better by William MacAskill. It may sound dramatic, but it changed the trajectory of my life in ways I can hardly express with words (I have the e-book if anyone would like me to send it). The book highlights the idea of effective altruism which, at its core, makes us ask: of all the ways we could make the world a better place, which does the most good? Which problems should we tackle immediately and which should we leave for another time? The main lesson of the book is that we should use evidence and careful reasoning to determine the most effective way to do good, rather than acting on impulse or emotion, a philosophy that is synonymous with Jeremy Bentham’s idea of utilitarianism and the concept of maximizing the greatest happiness for the greatest number.

Background image by Ehiko.

In political philosophy, we learn that an obvious way to increase overall utility is to redistribute resources from those who derive less utility from them to those who will derive more. MacAskill also points out in Doing Good Better a basic rule of economics: money is less valuable to you the more you have of it.

With the idea of effective altruism now established, the book also introduced me to the concept of cash transfers and how they are an effective method of alleviating poverty and improving lives in developing countries.

Cash Transfers: A Game-Changer in Development?

Essentially, cash transfer programs are social protection programs that provide direct monetary assistance to individuals or households, typically aimed at alleviating poverty and improving well-being. With unconditional cash transfers, recipients receive money without any requirements or conditions, providing maximum flexibility for beneficiaries to use the funds as they see fit. With conditional cash transfers, however, recipients must fulfil specific conditions, such as ensuring children attend school or getting regular health checkups to receive payment.

As a priority under the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), eradicating poverty led to the rapid expansion of CTPs across the globe. By 2010, these programs had reached more than 750 million people in the Global South’s low- and middle-income countries.

Returning to Hulme et al.’s “just give money to the poor” idea, we see the positive effects of simply giving money. Countries like Mexico, South Africa, Brazil, Indonesia, India, and many others have introduced programs to provide regular cash payments to large numbers of people on a long-term basis. In Brazil’s Bolsa Família, Hulme et al. point out that 18 million households benefit from CTPs, South Africa’s child benefits reach 8 million children, and in Mexico, Oportunidades reaches 5 million households.

In essence, the success of CTPs shows that these programs are affordable, that recipients use the money well and do not waste it, and that cash grants are an effective way to directly reduce current poverty. They also have the potential to prevent future poverty by facilitating economic growth and promoting human development. Other scholars back up the idea of CTPs being effective with evidence. Aron Richterman and Harsha Thirumurthy’s research shows that CTs in low- and middle-income countries led to a 20% reduction in the risk of death among adult women, a significant finding since women are among the most vulnerable groups in society. Although Sen doesn’t talk about CTPs directly, his idea of development as freedom, which includes poverty alleviation and economic autonomy, aligns with the philosophy behind CTPs, as they expand individual freedoms and capabilities.

In as much as CTPs may seem like some magical solution to ending poverty, there is a significant amount of criticism. Molyneux et al highlight how some scholars focus on implementation shortcomings, including inaccurate targeting, leakage, poor quality, and clientelist or corrupt service provision. Many critics do not see these programs as effective in tackling poverty. For example, Jimi Adesina criticizes the nature of CTPs in Africa, stating that an external dependency often characterizes social assistance programs in Africa like CTPs. He advocates for developing these programs within the framework of a national sovereign project, which I 100% agree with. He also suggests that CTPs alone are insufficient to address the complex challenges of poverty and inequality in Africa, emphasizing the need for broader structural transformation, including investment in research, innovation, and manufacturing capabilities. This leads back to my earlier point that Sen and Chang’s philosophies of development cannot exist in isolation; they are, in fact, intertwined. While development is about freedom, it is also about economic development.

As much as I support CTPs, I do believe that they alone cannot completely alleviate poverty, especially on the African continent, where each state is not a homogenous entity. However, through an effective altruist lens, CTPs are an effective route and a step in the right direction.

What Led Me to This Research?

Circling back to the summer of 2022, I wanted to focus my research on Nigeria and something related to child development and poverty alleviation. I was deeply concerned about the alarmingly high child mortality rate we faced due to vaccine-preventable diseases. My focus on reducing child mortality was based on the idea that with CCTs for child vaccination, we are feeding two birds with one scone (not killing two birds with one stone). If children are vaccinated, they are more likely to live to adulthood, acquire an education, and, in turn, boost the economically active section of our demographic transition model. With these little cash incentives, caregivers can focus their money on essentials like medication and transportation.

After four long months of research and writing, I stumbled upon a social transfer program in Nigeria called New Incentives, and I thought it would be a fantastic subject for my research. Essentially, New Incentives is a conditional cash transfer program (CTP) run in Northwestern Nigeria. Their approach aims to increase child vaccination rates by providing CCT payments to infant caregivers and parents. While conducting a meta-analysis study on New Incentives (IN) compared to other cash incentive programs run by the World Bank in other low- and middle-income countries, my research findings concluded that not only was the response rate for NI’s incentivized infant vaccination program a huge success, but it was also performing exponentially higher than similar programs in Kenya, India, Mali, Turkey, Nicaragua, and others. After further research and speaking with the founder and CEO of NI, Savetha Janumpalli, I concluded that this success was due to several factors:

Images sourced from New Incentive’s Instagram page.

• There was a higher emphasis on localization to raise awareness about the importance of child vaccines—NI even went as far as hiring town criers to inform caregivers about immunization days.

• Nigeria has one of the world’s lowest child immunization rates, which meant there was more room for improvement.

• NI had the Nigerian government’s backing and dedication, working hand in hand with them to improve immunization rates.

• Lastly, I suggested that their success was also a result of the framework of their program and the regulation of how CCTs are distributed.

I don’t mean to toot my own horn, but I think, even without knowing it at the time, my research tackles some of Jimi Adesina’s critiques of CTPs in Africa and also emphasizes the importance of localization in development, an upcoming topic on this blog. From this research, I was able to develop ideas on how countries might improve their CCT programs. Although what works for Nigeria with incentivized infant vaccination may not work for another country, these are important lessons to learn from.

Still on the topic of CTPs and effective altruism: my master’s dissertation focused on the impact of unconditional cash transfers (UCTs) on women’s empowerment in households in South Africa and Kenya. I analyzed two cash transfer programs, the Child Support Grant (CSG) in South Africa and the Hunger Safety Net Program (HSNP) in Kenya. This research aimed to understand how (or if) CTPs affected women in these communities. As women are the primary caregivers of children, I wanted to measure whether there was a correlation between how the money was spent and how it either increased women’s bargaining power in the home or reduced it. I also aimed to understand if women’s social, economic, and political empowerment increased as a result of these programs, using Naila Kabeer’s framework of choice while also touching on Sen’s idea of capabilities and development as freedom to further explore the role of agency in women’s empowerment. This research also explored the unintended consequences of CTPs and their long-term impacts on women’s empowerment.

Because women are among the most vulnerable groups in society, this vulnerability is compounded by economic, social, and political disadvantages, making them particularly susceptible to crises, conflicts, and poverty. This study is critical because properly implemented CTPs can significantly boost women’s empowerment. Women’s empowerment has become a central theme in international development discourse; it is a critical commitment to SDG 5, which seeks to achieve gender equity and empower all women and girls.

This study also explored themes of intersectionality as a tool for understanding how CTPs empower or disempower women differently in these two countries, depending on their socioeconomic status and whether or not they are in a single-parent household. While I don’t want to bore you with the overly analytical academic portion of the research, the findings suggested that both the HSNP and CSG had similar positive effects on women’s empowerment in Kenya and South Africa. These programs enhanced women’s economic and social well-being, increasing their decision-making and bargaining power within households and enabling them to choose how funds are allocated. However, Kabeer’s framework also revealed that unintended consequences could arise when her three dimensions of empowerment are not fully present. Specifically, when women’s agency is limited or not achieved, positive outcomes are less likely, potentially reinforcing gender and cultural norms, increasing income-based disparities, and heightening vulnerability to intimate partner violence and domestic abuse.

The discussion section of this study showed that there is a need for a gendered and holistic approach to CTPs in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). To reiterate from my earlier research, each CTP operates within its unique sociocultural and institutional context, which must be thoroughly understood. Tailoring solutions to address specific challenges and unintended consequences in each country is essential. I must also preface this by saying that you should not take what you are reading about my research as gospel, because there were a lot of limitations and biases due to a severe lack of significant academic data; thus, there is still plenty of room for further research.

Photos sourced from the HSNP website.

Why This Matters for Everyday People

Talking about CTPs in relation to development on this blog is important because it connects you—my readers—to evidence-based solutions for poverty alleviation and humanitarian aid. A lot of people associate development aid with large-scale infrastructure projects, food aid, or microloans, but cash transfers represent a direct, decentralized approach that empowers recipients. In my master’s program, we highlighted the importance of bottom-up rather than top-down solutions to development issues, and this approach offers an alternative to traditional, often ineffective, top-down aid models.

Furthermore, in the context of capabilities and development as freedom, CTPs put decision-making power in the hands of beneficiaries, allowing them to allocate resources according to their needs; whether for food, health, education, or business investments. Another important reason is that CTPs align with the effective altruism movement. They are among the most cost-effective interventions, making them an excellent case study for rethinking how we approach global poverty.

If you are thinking of ways to engage in humanitarian aid and development through an effective altruistic lens, you can:

• Support evidence-based charities: Donate to organizations with proven effectiveness, such as New Incentives or GiveDirectly.

• Be critical of feel-good activism: I encourage you to question popular but ineffective interventions and engage with development research by following economists like Ha-Joon Chang and Esther Duflo, and also engaging in scholarly discourse like that of Jimi Adesina.

• Engage with local voices and decolonize development thinking: Effective altruism sometimes overlooks the agency of communities receiving aid. I encourage you to listen to and support local organizations, follow researchers, activists, and journalists from the Global South to understand their perspectives and think critically about the colonial history of development aid and who controls the narratives.

In a nutshell, today's post reminds us that rethinking aid through the lens of effective altruism and embracing the many ways we define development is more than just an academic exercise; it’s a call to transform how we give. My journey through research has shown me that when we question conventional approaches and aim for real impact, the future of global aid can be revolutionary. So, I challenge you to take a fresh look at giving and consider how we can all be catalysts for meaningful change.

Thank you for joining me on this exploration, I’ll see you again next Monday!