As always, thanks for the though-provoking post! And (as usual) your ideas have stirred up a number of thoughts for me:
1. It seems like there's a risk in presenting a false dichotomy that poverty is either about personal agency or external factors. I'd say our degree of personal agency is heavily determined by external factors. In the same way that Marcus Aurelius reminds himself not to get angry with others - he points out that their behavior is simply a lack of knowledge and self-awareness (that does not come naturally to most people).
2. If you buy into the dichotomy, you conclude that financial assistance fosters the poverty mindset. It then follows that the best way to reduce poverty is to reduce financial assistance. When it comes to policy debates this is often where more conservative/libertarian folks stop. To take a swimming metaphor - it's the idea that people haven't learned to swim because they have a life jacket on. Take away the life jacket and people will just start swimming. Sure, some will - but others will definitely drown and drag others down with them.
3. I think the best thing to do (and best way to cross the political divides around this social problem) is to acknowledge that the poor have agency AND the circumstances of the poor often make it FAR more difficult to fully realize that agency. I think we underestimate all of the soft skills required to move successfully in an individualist capitalist economy - self-confidence, awareness of opportunities, vision of self for the future, self-discipline. In addition, the degree of opportunities available/possible paths forward is constricted by time and financial resources. People who make it out of poverty often are in micro-cultures that provide these soft-skills and/or connect with mentors who foster these skills and/or provide these resources.
4. The belief that the problem is primarily agency often comes with the belief that if you give a poor person money, they will simply waste it/become dependent on it. There are many actual experiments being run across the world (in both high and low resource settings) that aim to put this idea to the test. GiveDirectly is a nonprofit organization created that believes a huge driver of cyclical poverty is lack of money. They believe that the poor DO have creativity and personal agency but lack the catalyst of sufficient financial resources that would provide them hope (soft skill) and the money to put plans into action (resources). Their results so far have been pretty astounding.
We should experiment with policy approaches that affirm personal agency AND provide resources in an acknowledgment of the increased challenges the poor face. And we should keep in mind that the end goal of any poverty policy should be to figure out the best way, as a society, to empower everyone with the critical soft skills that support personal agency and ultimately independence. That seems to me a way that the Left and Right could meet together on poverty solutions... if we had a more humble and curious approach to the problem we might run many different experiments and find out what works and what doesn't. Let the results decide rather than fight a death match over ideologies.
Yes, the poor have agency and those who deny it are in reality harming the poor.
Your idea of experiments to see what works is excellent.
I recall though one Catholic shelter operating in San Diego operating decades ago. They had a triage system. Everyone got at least a bed and food. Those who met certain levels got a private room, computer and job counseling. They were sued for discriminating.
Good thoughts Rob. I think the people with a poverty mindset find it more comfortable to maintain that mindset than to challenge themselves to change that mindset. And I believe the essay alludes to that. That said I would propose incremental steps that make poverty a less comfortable mindset starting with loss of their liberties. Have the government put controls, through tax funded purse strings, on how they live with gradual relaxing of the controls as they start to take prescribed steps and corrective actions to changing their mindset and start using their agency to live a life as free of dependency as they are capable of. This probably sounds a bit People’s Republic of China-ish, but the distinction is that China has every one under that system whereas I am prescribing it for those dependent on welfare. I realize this could be interpreted as being uncaring, but I would argue that not making an attempt to get people to gain back their agency is perhaps a higher level of uncaring.
Thanks, Neal. I guess part of what I'm trying to express is a wariness of silver bullet policy approaches. "The cause of the problem is X, the solution is Y." I'm not saying that Barry was making that claim, but one might come to that conclusion from the essay. I'm arguing that the problem of poverty is complex (cultural and material factors) and necessitates trying different approaches to find effective solutions. I don't think there is a one size fits all approach and I definitely doubt we've landed on the best we can do yet. So in my mind, if we want to figure out the best policies we should be running lots of experiments - in different states, different counties, locales, etc. to see what policies are most effective (but this is essentially impossible when a program lives at the Federal level). I'd love to see an approach like yours put to the test somewhere!
Excellent essay Barry. I agree with your concept of agency. In behavioral psychology, we have a formula for it: behavior is a function of its consequences. B= f(Cq). If a behavior has a positive consequence, people will do more of that behavior.
While some people would like to apply labels to the patients you describe, such as lazy or worthless, in fact it is a quite rational decision for them.
Job A: work eight hours per day and get paid the money to buy food, clothing, and shelter.
Job B: stay at home eight hours per day and receive the money to buy food, clothing and shelter.
The rational choice is B.
All other things being equal, you choose the behavior with the biggest reward for the least effort. That choice is B.
The cure? Stop welfare payments. When the only behavior that will get you the money to buy food, clothing and shelter is working a job, you will work a job.
For those truly unable to work due to genuine disabilities, church charities and private organizations will fill the need. This is documented in the book The Tragedy of American Compassion by Marvin Olasky.
Good point Just as we saw each state apply different practices during Covid, one of the great distinctions of the US is having the chance to run 50 different experiments.
As always, thanks for the though-provoking post! And (as usual) your ideas have stirred up a number of thoughts for me:
1. It seems like there's a risk in presenting a false dichotomy that poverty is either about personal agency or external factors. I'd say our degree of personal agency is heavily determined by external factors. In the same way that Marcus Aurelius reminds himself not to get angry with others - he points out that their behavior is simply a lack of knowledge and self-awareness (that does not come naturally to most people).
2. If you buy into the dichotomy, you conclude that financial assistance fosters the poverty mindset. It then follows that the best way to reduce poverty is to reduce financial assistance. When it comes to policy debates this is often where more conservative/libertarian folks stop. To take a swimming metaphor - it's the idea that people haven't learned to swim because they have a life jacket on. Take away the life jacket and people will just start swimming. Sure, some will - but others will definitely drown and drag others down with them.
3. I think the best thing to do (and best way to cross the political divides around this social problem) is to acknowledge that the poor have agency AND the circumstances of the poor often make it FAR more difficult to fully realize that agency. I think we underestimate all of the soft skills required to move successfully in an individualist capitalist economy - self-confidence, awareness of opportunities, vision of self for the future, self-discipline. In addition, the degree of opportunities available/possible paths forward is constricted by time and financial resources. People who make it out of poverty often are in micro-cultures that provide these soft-skills and/or connect with mentors who foster these skills and/or provide these resources.
4. The belief that the problem is primarily agency often comes with the belief that if you give a poor person money, they will simply waste it/become dependent on it. There are many actual experiments being run across the world (in both high and low resource settings) that aim to put this idea to the test. GiveDirectly is a nonprofit organization created that believes a huge driver of cyclical poverty is lack of money. They believe that the poor DO have creativity and personal agency but lack the catalyst of sufficient financial resources that would provide them hope (soft skill) and the money to put plans into action (resources). Their results so far have been pretty astounding.
We should experiment with policy approaches that affirm personal agency AND provide resources in an acknowledgment of the increased challenges the poor face. And we should keep in mind that the end goal of any poverty policy should be to figure out the best way, as a society, to empower everyone with the critical soft skills that support personal agency and ultimately independence. That seems to me a way that the Left and Right could meet together on poverty solutions... if we had a more humble and curious approach to the problem we might run many different experiments and find out what works and what doesn't. Let the results decide rather than fight a death match over ideologies.
What are your thoughts?
Rob, I love your nuanced post.
My essay did not address complex policy issues.
Yes, the poor have agency and those who deny it are in reality harming the poor.
Your idea of experiments to see what works is excellent.
I recall though one Catholic shelter operating in San Diego operating decades ago. They had a triage system. Everyone got at least a bed and food. Those who met certain levels got a private room, computer and job counseling. They were sued for discriminating.
Good thoughts Rob. I think the people with a poverty mindset find it more comfortable to maintain that mindset than to challenge themselves to change that mindset. And I believe the essay alludes to that. That said I would propose incremental steps that make poverty a less comfortable mindset starting with loss of their liberties. Have the government put controls, through tax funded purse strings, on how they live with gradual relaxing of the controls as they start to take prescribed steps and corrective actions to changing their mindset and start using their agency to live a life as free of dependency as they are capable of. This probably sounds a bit People’s Republic of China-ish, but the distinction is that China has every one under that system whereas I am prescribing it for those dependent on welfare. I realize this could be interpreted as being uncaring, but I would argue that not making an attempt to get people to gain back their agency is perhaps a higher level of uncaring.
I agree, Neal. Incentives matter.
I agree, too, that taxpayer money should be not be abused.
Thanks, Neal. I guess part of what I'm trying to express is a wariness of silver bullet policy approaches. "The cause of the problem is X, the solution is Y." I'm not saying that Barry was making that claim, but one might come to that conclusion from the essay. I'm arguing that the problem of poverty is complex (cultural and material factors) and necessitates trying different approaches to find effective solutions. I don't think there is a one size fits all approach and I definitely doubt we've landed on the best we can do yet. So in my mind, if we want to figure out the best policies we should be running lots of experiments - in different states, different counties, locales, etc. to see what policies are most effective (but this is essentially impossible when a program lives at the Federal level). I'd love to see an approach like yours put to the test somewhere!
Excellent essay Barry. I agree with your concept of agency. In behavioral psychology, we have a formula for it: behavior is a function of its consequences. B= f(Cq). If a behavior has a positive consequence, people will do more of that behavior.
While some people would like to apply labels to the patients you describe, such as lazy or worthless, in fact it is a quite rational decision for them.
Job A: work eight hours per day and get paid the money to buy food, clothing, and shelter.
Job B: stay at home eight hours per day and receive the money to buy food, clothing and shelter.
The rational choice is B.
All other things being equal, you choose the behavior with the biggest reward for the least effort. That choice is B.
The cure? Stop welfare payments. When the only behavior that will get you the money to buy food, clothing and shelter is working a job, you will work a job.
For those truly unable to work due to genuine disabilities, church charities and private organizations will fill the need. This is documented in the book The Tragedy of American Compassion by Marvin Olasky.
Thanks, Michael.
Thanks too for adding your insights and the pointer to the excellent Olasky book.
Good point Just as we saw each state apply different practices during Covid, one of the great distinctions of the US is having the chance to run 50 different experiments.