Conditional Cash Transfer

The focus of my  blog this week  is ‘Conditional Cash Transfer’. This is an example of why this program is more successful in rural area as opposed to that of urban area.  The article “Condition Cash Transfer” flops in NYC by  John Derbyshire. It cites reasons for why this programme  could not  succeed in metropolitan city like New York.  Conditional Cash Transfer program was designed with an objective of eradicating poverty. As a part of the program, government would transfer money to the persons who meet certain criteria defined by the government.  According to the world bank report.

 “ Conditional Cash Transfer programs provide cash payments to poor households that meet certain behavioral requirements, generally related to children’s health care and education. Poor families are aware of the benefits of investing in their children but cannot afford the monetary costs of attending school or the opportunity costs of sending children to school (the income or value of income that children would earn if they were working, rather than attending school). Since families need this income for current consumption, they take their children out of school at early ages and send them to work.”

This shows that the CCT programme was designed on a premise that institutional and social barriers prevent poor people from having an access to education and health facilities. However, author informs in the article that no such barriers exist in NYC. Healthcare is free (through Medicaid and emergency room service. There are lots of public funded job training opportunities. If the poverty is there , is not the result of any social or institutional barrier but because of low intelligence and  lack of drive.  In such cities, programmes like CCT are bound to fail .On the other hand this programme is a big success among rural population in  Philippines, Mexico and  Brazil.

 The only concern I have at this point is ‘Do we have any model in place that ensures sustenance of the impacts of this program?