Subscribe right here: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube | Overcast | Pocket Casts
We was trapped. And by “we,” I actually do imply all of us. A number of hundred years in the past, the vast majority of the world lived in excessive poverty, and even in latest many years, individuals fortunate sufficient to clear the $2.15-per-day threshold had been dwelling lives that others within the developed world would discover unrecognizable.
Demise is inevitable. Dwelling in poverty isn’t.
From 1981 to 2019, the share of the worldwide inhabitants dwelling in excessive poverty fell from 44 % to only 9 %—an astronomical achievement.
On this episode of Good on Paper, we’re going to speak about how this all occurred. Right now’s visitor is Paul Niehaus, an economist and co-founder of the NGO GiveDirectly. His new paper particulars what truly occurred within the lives of people that escaped excessive poverty because the early Nineteen Eighties. As he and his co-authors write, by “how” they imply: “Did they plant a brand new money crop on their farm? Discover work in a manufacturing unit? Begin their very own enterprise? Transfer to a metropolis?” And additional, what occurred throughout the life of 1 individual, versus what occurred between cohorts or generations?
The solutions present perception into what an actual “success sequence” appears like, and problem some foundational concepts inside improvement.
“There’s nobody story,” Niehaus tells me. “As an creator, it might’ve been good if there was a quite simple story to inform, which is, Properly, the important thing factor is all people’s gotta transfer to town or no matter it’s. However you see individuals getting out of poverty whereas transferring to town. You see lots of people getting out of poverty whereas staying the place they’re. You see lots of people getting out of poverty whereas not switching from agriculture into nonagriculture. And in addition, the tales are completely different in numerous international locations.”
The next is a transcript of the episode:
Jerusalem Demsas: For hundreds of years, mass poverty appeared inevitable. Hunger, illness, loss of life. As late because the 1700s, roughly half of youngsters globally would die earlier than reaching maturity. This was the pure order of issues.
After which the whole lot started to alter. Taking a look at a graph of improvement measures over the previous 2 hundred years is to witness the miracle of human improvement: On any measure you possibly can consider—youngster mortality, vitamin, poverty—increasingly individuals are capable of dwell considerably higher lives than their ancestors might even dream of.
Simply 35 years in the past, 2 billion individuals lived in excessive poverty. Right now, that quantity is just below 700 million. That’s nonetheless lots of people, however this staggering enchancment proves that mass poverty isn’t preordained.
[Music]
Demsas: My title’s Jerusalem Demsas. I’m a workers author at The Atlantic, and that is Good on Paper, a coverage present that questions what we actually find out about widespread narratives.
Why did excessive poverty fall so quick, and might we end the job? A great deal of analysis and debate has gone into the query of why excessive poverty fell, however at the moment we’re going to speak about how.
Paul Niehaus is an economist at UC San Diego and the co-founder of GiveDirectly, an NGO centered on getting money into the arms of the worldwide poor. Few have thought more durable—academically and virtually—about these questions. Right now we’re going to speak about his work with GiveDirectly and a brand new paper he co-authored, titled “How Poverty Fell,” that particulars what occurred between 1981 and 2019 within the lives of these dwelling in excessive poverty.
Earlier than we soar into this dialog, one final word from me: This will likely be my ultimate episode with you all. I’ve cherished my time right here internet hosting Good on Paper and really feel so fortunate to have been capable of discover all of my curiosities with you and the good visitors who lent us their time. And I need to thank all of you—these of you who listened, emailed, left a evaluate, and engaged with this present in any method. It has been wonderful to understand what number of fellow wonks there are on the market, excited to dig deep into how and why we all know issues. And don’t fear. The present isn’t going away—simply taking a break.
Let’s dive in. Paul, welcome to the present.
Paul Niehaus: Thanks, Jerusalem. Nice to be right here.
Demsas: I feel as a result of individuals stay rightly involved about persevering with deprivations, we regularly don’t take a step again to soak up simply how outstanding the worldwide decline in poverty—in excessive poverty—has been. Are you able to give me a way of how a lot issues have modified?
Niehaus: Precisely. And so we’ll discuss in regards to the paper I feel that you just needed to speak about, which is “How Poverty Fell.” However in some sense, I form of really feel like for possibly most individuals listening, the important thing factor that they want to remove is definitely simply the premise that it fell. And so we begin the paper with that commentary, that over the course of the final 4 many years or so, from round 1980 to round 2020, the share of the world’s inhabitants dwelling in excessive poverty—so individuals dwelling on lower than (at the moment we measure that as) $2.15 per individual per day—that fell from about 40 % to underneath 10 % across the begin of the pandemic. And that’s, in my thoughts, simply one of the crucial outstanding episodes in human historical past, and simply an achievement to rejoice and to attempt to perceive, which is what the paper’s about.
Demsas: And excessive poverty. I imply, $2.15 a day—I imply, if of us keep in mind, it was $1.90 a day till that 2022 replace for inflation. It’s not the edge that individuals are dwelling what we might contemplate good lives, proper? Individuals will starve at this degree. They in all probability lack entry to electrical energy and different essential items. Why is it essential to trace this quantity, versus different metrics of poverty?
Niehaus: It’s not the one one, and we’ll do that within the paper, have a look at different strains as nicely. And any line has basic points with it, which individuals have rightly identified. Some individuals are going to have a better skill to translate $2.15 a day into the types of issues that basically matter in life—well being and relationships and issues—than others. So it’s only one indicator.
However what I feel it has carried out very successfully is to form of impress consideration around the globe by the method—the Millennium Growth Objectives and the Sustainable Growth Objectives and the World Financial institution’s advocacy for that quantity—to a form of easy metric that we will monitor and say, Are we making progress or not? And that issues, proper? As a result of it lets us quantify whether or not we’re seeing the type of progress that we’d prefer to see.
Demsas: So “How Poverty Fell” is a really simple title, which I respect. And I need to begin by asking you to clarify that query. What does it imply to research how poverty fell? Like, what are you taking a look at? What are you making an attempt to explain?
Niehaus: Yeah. Nice. The very first thing I’d simply say is poverty fell, proper? As I mentioned, that premise itself is essential. So actually simply that reality, that premise, I feel is a vital takeaway.
The subsequent bit is the how, with simply a whole lot of emphasis on how versus why. And so a whole lot of the motion in improvement economics over the past couple of many years, which has been great, has been in direction of making an attempt to grasp causality: the why. So why did poverty fall? And naturally, most of the nice debates that now we have in regards to the international improvement course of are in regards to the why. Was it as a result of India liberalized within the early Nineties? How a lot did that contribute?
However this can be a paper about how. Descriptively, if we have a look at all these individuals who moved out of utmost poverty, what occurred of their lives, proper? Is it that children had been capable of begin out life a lot better than their mother and father did, as a result of that they had entry to higher education or different early-childhood investments? Is it that individuals moved out of agriculture; they moved to town and had been capable of get a producing job as they moved off the farm? These are all kinds of issues that we all know occurred, however how essential, quantitatively, had been they for all these those that made that step over the poverty line?
Demsas: I’d love so that you can stroll us by how you probably did this paper, as a result of an enormous a part of why I needed to speak to you about it’s because it’s a reasonably bold try to gather information over time from so many alternative individuals and households throughout a number of international locations. So that you concentrate on 5 international locations. What are these international locations, after which what did you do to get this data?
Niehaus: We’re trying right here at, as you say, 5 international locations: India, China, Indonesia, South Africa, Mexico. And truly, many of the work—you talked about all of the exhausting work, so huge quantity of exhausting work—however truly, most of it was carried out by individuals aside from ourselves, the individuals who went out and picked up these unique survey information units that allow us do that. And so our filter for the venture, once we determined which international locations to take a look at, are the international locations which have a number of the highest-quality household-survey information units accessible. That permit us actually drill into, What are individuals’s requirements of dwelling? and likewise, The place are they getting their revenue from? in order that we will perceive how that’s altering.
And that’s a extremely exhausting job. And so one piece of context I need to set is that when you’re used to enthusiastic about, say, poverty in america, we will measure that fairly reliably—you realize, points and so forth—however taking a look at form of information that individuals report back to the federal government mechanically by tax reporting and so forth. And we need to complement that with surveys and so forth, however there’s third-party reporting. There’s all this equipment that exists.
And so within the international locations we’re finding out, that’s not the case. And the info that we’re taking a look at are going to come back from individuals which are going out into distant corners of the nation as a result of we sampled a village there—and going to that village and making an attempt to trace down some those that we sampled that we need to interview, after which asking them in the event that they’d be keen to sit down for a multi-hour interview, and asking them actually detailed questions like, How a lot rice did you and your loved ones eat final week? And the way a lot cash did you make out of your vegetable farm? And the way a lot cash did you make from doing a little informal labor for different individuals within the village? And it’s an extremely painstaking and laborious effort. What we’re making an attempt to do is capitalize on all of that tough work that different individuals have carried out and say, If we now put all of it collectively—as a result of for a bunch of those international locations, now we have information which are actually form of the perfect, that adhere to the very best requirements of knowledge assortment in fieldwork in improvement—what can we study from that?
Demsas: And, I imply, I feel a lay individual listening to these 5 international locations would assume there’s one thing essential lacking. I imply, India, China, South Africa, Mexico, Indonesia: It actually doesn’t embody a number of the international locations the place most individuals take into consideration excessive poverty being the largest difficulty. Like, it doesn’t embody a lot of sub-Saharan Africa, the place we do see probably the most deprivation. Are you nervous about that by way of—I do know you mentioned you picked these international locations based mostly on what the perfect information allowed you to review—however are you involved that it’s not going to extrapolate to the locations which are of most concern at the moment?
Niehaus: Yeah, there are two components to that. One is: It’s backwards trying, and so these are literally the international locations that contributed probably the most to extreme-poverty discount throughout the interval that we’re taking a look at, particularly India, China, Indonesia. So South Africa, Mexico—comparatively small. And we could get into this, however there they’re completely different economically in a bunch of different methods as nicely.
So truly, throughout the time interval that we’re taking a look at, these international locations are fairly engaging and could be the ones that you just’d need to prioritize. For at the moment, I feel you’re completely proper: Should you needed to form of have a look at what’s occurring within the final 5 years or take into consideration what may occur within the subsequent 10, you’d in all probability need to be trying elsewhere on the planet.
That mentioned, there are additionally examples of smaller-scale research—a couple of areas in Uganda or in Tanzania, for instance—that monitor migrants. And so one of many issues we attempt to do within the paper is to additionally tip our cap to these and level out some similarities by way of the findings from these as nicely. However yeah, these are locations the place we do face this very deep constraint that the identical sorts of knowledge, and particularly panel information—that means, information the place we observe the identical individuals over lengthy intervals of time—are a lot scarcer.
Demsas: Yeah. It’s a tough drawback as a result of the very locations which are most disadvantaged are those which are most troublesome to review.
Niehaus: Sure.
Demsas: So how did poverty fall, Paul? What did you discover?
Niehaus: I distill three issues. So the primary is: We have a look at this intergenerational facet of it. And possibly you’ve heard language like breaking the cycle of poverty or [breaking] the intergenerational cycle of poverty. So actually form of keen on: To what extent, as poverty fell, was it as a result of one technology was form of caught at the place they had been, as a result of they by no means had the prospect to get training or no matter it’s, however then they’re capable of make the sacrifices in order that the following technology can have a greater life?
And so what was actually attention-grabbing to me—I feel I’d’ve anticipated a whole lot of that. Truly, what it appears rather more like is: Once we see a brand new technology getting into into the workforce, they’re beginning out about as poor as their mother and father’ technology—a lot much less poor than their mother and father’ technology was when their mother and father’ technology entered the workforce 25 years earlier, let’s say. However their mother and father have made a whole lot of progress within the meantime. So general, what appears to be occurring is individuals are making a whole lot of progress throughout their lifetimes in parallel to the enhancements that they’re then capable of go alongside to their children.
And so we take away from that that it’s essential to grasp what is going on throughout individuals’s lives, as a result of it’s actually true that, you realize, what you get at the beginning by way of dietary investments your mother and father are capable of make, taking care of your well being, vaccination, education—all that stuff’s essential, however it’s not like that’s the top of the story, proper? We see that there’s rather more after that, and lots of people are making progress throughout their lifetimes as nicely. In order that’s form of reality No. 1.
Reality No. 2, we’re now going to show to those panel information units I discussed that allow us monitor the identical individuals over time. And so these are much more scarce. You may think about the difficulties concerned, particularly once we need to monitor individuals as they—you realize, possibly they’re transferring to a distinct a part of the nation for higher alternatives and so forth. However now we have information for these 5 international locations, and what you actually see in all of these is a gigantic quantity of churn, of motion in each instructions.
So if the very first thing I needed you to find out about this paper is that lots of people bought out of poverty, the second could be that much more individuals bought out of poverty in gross, however then on web, poverty charges fell much less quick than they could have, as a result of a whole lot of these individuals fell again into poverty. And that’s a extremely essential reality. We could come to it by way of how we body the way in which we take into consideration poverty and poverty discount. You hear a whole lot of dialog speak about poverty traps, individuals being caught in poverty. I feel that contributes to this mindset that’s like, Until we are available in and intervene not directly, except we type of discover the magic key to unlock this case, individuals are going to remain caught the place they’re.
And what the info truly seemed like is rather more that, like, individuals are getting out of poverty on a regular basis at a really quick charge. The most important drawback is that they’re dealing with a whole lot of headwinds, issues that knock them again. And we will get into what a few of these issues are. It could be sickness, droughts, agricultural shocks, issues like this, however it’s that getting knocked again that I feel is admittedly essential.
There’s some caveats to that discovering. There’s going to be some measurement error in our information, proper? And that’s going to generate extra of this. It’s going to appear like anyone bought out of poverty, when truly they didn’t. So it’s a bit difficult, to be utterly frank, to say simply how a lot of that is churn versus measurement error. Nevertheless it’s so sturdy, it’s so pronounced within the information, and it strains up with a whole lot of different analysis. I simply assume that’s an important actuality to type of get your head round.
Demsas: And also you imply measurement error that you just’re dropping individuals as they transfer, otherwise you simply can’t discover them once more?
Niehaus: Extra simply that, like, once I are available in and I attempt to do these surveys and determine your dwelling requirements, it’s exhausting, proper? And we don’t at all times get the reply precisely proper. And in order that’s simply going to create some noise within the information, and it’ll appear like anyone fell again into poverty when possibly they didn’t. So a bit little bit of it’s going to be that.
Demsas: And you then had a 3rd stylistic reality for us.
Niehaus: So the third is—now we have a look at these individuals as they’re transferring out of poverty and get to a few of these questions I posed earlier about what’s occurring of their lives. And I’d actually say there’s nobody story. As an creator, it might’ve been good if there was a quite simple story to inform, which is, Properly, the important thing factor is all people’s gotta transfer to town, or no matter it’s. However—
Demsas: Yeah.
Niehaus: —you see individuals getting out of poverty whereas transferring to town. You see lots of people getting out of poverty whereas staying the place they’re. You see lots of people getting out of poverty whereas not switching from agriculture into nonagriculture. And in addition, the tales are completely different in numerous international locations in attention-grabbing methods.
So possibly form of broad method to consider it’s: It’s good to not be in search of, form of, the answer and saying, What’s the path that individuals have to stroll? and extra enthusiastic about, like, What are the best paths for a given individual in a given context, and the way can we speed up that and assist them alongside that? Versus coming in anticipating there to be one factor that’ll work nicely for everyone.
Demsas: So now I’ve to speak about my priors right here, since you pushed in opposition to them in ways in which made me uncomfortable. So economists, urbanists, immigrants—we are likely to see migration as an enormous a part of the story for modernization, poverty discount, growing the standard of life.
I imply, I’m clearly going to be biased, additionally, due to my very own life. My household immigrated right here from Addis Ababa once I was very younger, and my dad moved from Asmara to Addis Ababa with the intention to get an training. And it’s simply, like, that is ingrained in not simply private experiences but in addition, the financial literature actually pushes that transferring in direction of cities—higher-productivity cities—is the important thing method to enhance each financial development and productiveness, but in addition giving individuals entry to the great life, like entry to greater requirements of dwelling and different issues that they care about.
It’s not that your paper invalidates this totally, however it does push again in opposition to this dominant view, in some methods. That basic story of rural peasants transferring in direction of cities and in direction of factories, it’s solely part of the image, and it’s not even the dominant one. In some methods, I’d assume it’s not likely the movers which are the celebs of your tales; it’s the stayers, each by way of geography but in addition by way of staying inside particular sectors. Is that an correct type of learn of a takeaway, and did that shock you?
Niehaus: Yeah, that’s about how I learn it. A number of issues there. One is: Worldwide migration, which you introduced up, we’re not going to see right here. And it’s in all probability not related for getting individuals over $2.15. I’m guessing that your loved ones, after they moved, had entry to a lot better alternatives however that you just’re transferring from a a lot greater place to begin than that poverty line. And so we’re actually type of zooming in right here on the left tail of the revenue distribution and making an attempt to grasp that.
Level two is—and that is the place the economics is available in—that when a couple of individuals transfer to town, let’s say, that’s going to alter wages and labor-market outcomes and different issues for the individuals who keep behind. And so one of many issues that economists want to essentially unpack, and that is one thing that’s been essential in different papers that I’ve labored on, is that little bit of not simply the direct impact on the one who leaves but in addition the oblique results and the way that adjustments issues for everyone else.
And in order that’s not one thing we will see very simply in these sorts of knowledge, however that’s one of many questions that we needs to be asking of them, is how a lot of that was enjoying a task. However, you realize, all that having been mentioned, yeah, I feel it’s very clear that lots of people have been capable of make important progress whereas staying in place.
And, you realize, to me, one of the crucial attention-grabbing instances was Indonesia, as a result of now we have actually good migrant monitoring in Indonesia, and there have been lots of people who bought out of poverty whereas transferring, however whereas transferring from one rural space to a different rural space. In order that, once more, as you say, it’s a bit bit completely different from the usual story. It’s an attention-grabbing twist. I feel that’s factor to drill into.
Demsas: Yeah. I imply, regional financial convergence is one thing that has been studied at a distinct degree—not likely that I haven’t seen within the extreme-poverty area. However one of many editors at The Atlantic, Yoni Appelbaum, has written about this, and it begins with Peter Ganong and Daniel Shoag’s actually nice paper about declining regional convergence, which simply type of reveals, you realize, precisely what you had been saying, that when individuals depart lower-productivity, lower-wage areas in direction of cities which are greater wage, greater productiveness, the locations they depart are web higher off as a result of there are fewer individuals there or as a result of the common poverty degree declines as a result of the individuals who stay are sometimes those that are within the good jobs.
However I need to tease aside one thing that you just identified in response to my query, which is: We’re speaking about individuals escaping excessive poverty, not individuals like my household and others who weren’t at, like, $2.15 a day or under that degree.
Do you assume that these solutions that you just’re discovering—these information that you just’re discovering—are actually nearly excessive poverty, and that questions on learn how to transfer individuals into the center class, into greater ranges, are going to be fairly completely different? That industrialization will play a a lot bigger function, urbanization will play a a lot bigger function? How do you consider that?
Niehaus: Yeah, presumably. And I feel many of the reply to that’s: That’s one thing that I feel we’ll hold doing as we proceed with the venture and look extra at that, so in all probability higher to only have a look at the info than to take a position an excessive amount of.
Demsas: The second a part of that is that it’s not nearly geographical transferring; it’s additionally about inside sectors. So that you talked a bit about this with agriculture, however what is going on inside agriculture that’s permitting individuals to get themselves out of utmost poverty? The standard story, as you mentioned, is that they’ve to depart that sector to generate income.
Niehaus: Properly, one of many issues we will have a look at with the info is whether or not you’re self-employed or not. And so the sector you select to work in is an enormous one, as you say. We inform a whole lot of tales in financial improvement in regards to the function of self-employment versus wage employment. And so one of many issues that I believed was very attention-grabbing right here, and one of many methods during which, as I mentioned earlier, a few of these international locations look very completely different from one another, is that within the lower-income international locations—the international locations that started off poorer originally of this era, that are India, China, Indonesia—you see that individuals who swap into self-employment are making a whole lot of progress. That accounts for a justifiable share of the poverty decline, and form of the charges at which individuals who make that change exit poverty are comparatively excessive. After which in Mexico and in South Africa, it’s the precise reverse, which is that the individuals who appear to be doing finest are individuals who get a job.
And I feel that additionally possibly relates a bit bit to your query in regards to the ladder and form of what the later levels within the ladder appear like as nicely. As a result of Mexico, South Africa are extra developed international locations—they’re extra industrialized international locations—agriculture performs a smaller function to start with.
And so that may be a place the place individuals who “change into entrepreneurs” look to me loads like these form of entrepreneurs of necessity. They’re form of doing it as a result of they couldn’t get a wage job, which is what they actually needed. And the perfect factor they’ll do is to be a small vendor, promote one thing on the roadside, attempt to scrape by till they’ll get again into wage employment—versus these different international locations the place I feel it’s truly: For many individuals to personal their very own land or to start out their very own non-ag enterprise, that might truly be a extremely excessive return and thrilling factor to do when you might get the capital to do it.
Demsas: You hinted at this, however I feel the nonlinearity of the tales underlying this analysis type of speaks to lots of people’s private experiences. It’s the slippery slope the place individuals are making their method out of poverty to a barely higher place than falling again. Are you able to simply describe what’s happening there and possibly give us a few of these information inside international locations? I feel Indonesia, as an example, was a spot the place you seemed into this.
Niehaus: Yeah, what we do in our paper is, you realize, we’re making an attempt to provide the type of broad-stroke information right here. I feel for this query, I’d go to different sources. I actually like, for instance, Anirudh Krishna’s ebook One Sickness Away, which sounds prefer it’s a ebook about well being, however it’s actually a ebook about poverty dynamics and this dynamic of getting knocked again into poverty.
And he referred to as it One Sickness Away as a result of for many individuals, that’s the factor that does it. It’s like: A main breadwinner will get sick. It’s a must to spend some huge cash on their well being care. Hopefully that works, however possibly it doesn’t. Possibly you spend all that cash after which they nonetheless go away. Within the meantime, they’re not incomes. And that’s simply an enormous shock, proper? And through that interval, possibly you’re promoting off belongings and so forth to attempt to cowl their medical payments and to make ends meet. And so I feel it’s issues like that we must always bear in mind when you consider these individuals who get knocked again.
Demsas: And the numbers had been actually stunning to me. I imply, in Indonesia, you guys discover that 37 % of households who had been poor at the beginning remained poor on the finish of a 15-year panel. However solely 16 % had been poor in each survey spherical, that means that a great deal of individuals are falling out and in. Equally, in South Africa, you discover that solely roughly, like, 1 / 4 of initially poor households stayed persistently poor all through the panel. I feel that degree of churn is one thing that we’re acquainted with, even in greater ranges of poverty in developed nations.
Within the housing context, individuals are discovering a spot to remain, and so they really feel protected, after which divorce occurs or an sickness occurs or a job loss occurs, after which they fall again into homelessness. I imply, that type of churn is very well documented. However, you realize, it’s attention-grabbing as a result of it doesn’t really feel like that’s how individuals discuss in regards to the poverty entice, proper? They speak about it as when you’re caught there and ready for an intervention, and till that intervention occurs, there’s actually nothing to be carried out. You’re simply, like, ready there, and it actually stagnates. Why do you assume that concept persists?
Niehaus: I’ll be sincere: I feel that the considerably skeptical a part of my nature thinks that it’s engaging to us. It form of depicts a situation during which a hero is required. And look—I bought into improvement economics hoping to be a hero of some kinds, I assume, and so I needs to be very sincere and self-critical about this.
However I feel that story sells, proper? And it’s efficient at getting individuals to donate cash. And so that you form of say to individuals, Yeah, like, individuals are caught on this entice, and if we are available in, we will get them out. And so I feel that’s very compelling, possibly a bit bit simpler to pitch to individuals than the story that, like, individuals are making huge quantities of progress on their very own, largely with out assist. Our function is to come back in and take into consideration how we will speed up that, how we will make it quicker, and likewise how we will present them with some extent of a security web in order that after they get hit by these shocks, they don’t get knocked too far again. It’s a bit extra nuanced. However I feel that’s true to the info.
Demsas: After the break: Who ought to obtain money transfers, and who will get to determine?
[Break]
Demsas: I need to transfer a bit bit into takeaways for coverage makers, for NGOs, for people who care about reductions in poverty and need to make a distinction. So you’re at GiveDirectly, which is a company that sends money transfers on to individuals dwelling in excessive poverty. Are you able to broadly describe the way you determine the place to direct these transfers into which individuals?
Niehaus: Yeah. So first I ought to say I’m at UC San Diego. I’m there at the moment, and so they’re those who pay my paycheck. However I’m additionally a co-founder and a board member at GiveDirectly. And so: tremendous completely happy to speak in regards to the work that we do there. GiveDirectly is, I feel, the biggest international nonprofit centered on direct transfers to individuals dwelling in excessive poverty. We’re at the moment in round a dozen international locations, principally in sub-Saharan Africa, to your level earlier.
And also you requested particularly about how we select who to direct the transfers to. Fairly easy: We’re usually in search of individuals dwelling, you realize—the poorest those that we will discover, the poorest communities that we will discover. We’ve tended to err on the aspect of simplicity. Once we get right into a village, let’s say we’re going to enroll the general public dwelling in that village. We’d attempt to exclude a couple of rich landowners or individuals which are form of absentee landowner, landlords, individuals like that. However usually, the aim of it’s to attempt to discover the poorest individuals we will after which get massive quantities of cash into their arms, no strings hooked up. Allow them to determine what they need to do with it.
However for everyone listening, I feel there’s a little bit of context that’s essential, which is that this present is named Good on Paper. I’d say that, like, most of global-development work was, like, up till round 2000, good on paper—within the sense that we had a whole lot of theories of what must work, a whole lot of intuitions and issues like that. There wasn’t all that a lot rigorous testing of something, not to mention the very particular questions on the best method or the perfect methods to do money transfers and so forth, that are excellent.
And so it was solely within the final 20 years or so, I’d say, not simply due to experimental testing—[randomized controlled trials] (RCTs) and the RCT motion—however particularly due to that, I’d say we began to get a whole lot of actually good causal proof on what works. In order that’s why we’re in a world the place (A) I can inform you numerous already about what occurs once we give cash to individuals dwelling in excessive poverty, which has usually been excellent, and (B) we will get into a few of these extra nuanced questions that you just’re asking. However I simply need individuals to have that context.
Demsas: And the way a lot analysis do you do in direction of issues like anticipatory money transfers or seasonal money transfers or concentrating on particularly at ladies or completely different teams? How do you consider these features?
Niehaus: I simply wrote a evaluate paper on a few of these questions with Tavneet Suri, and the gender one I feel may be very attention-grabbing. We’ve a couple of research that examine what occurs when you give cash to a husband versus to a spouse, let’s say. We’ve fewer of these than you may assume. It’s clearly an important query, and the reason being that the overwhelming view has been that you must give it to the spouse, and so virtually all money transfers are run that method. GiveDirectly, by the way in which, it tends to be round 70–80 % of the time in a typical program that we’ll give cash to a spouse, however we truly let the family determine how they need to try this, and so there’s been some variation there.
I’d say that when you have a look at the research which have different this, there isn’t an apparent winner. It’s not like ladies are good and males are unhealthy, or vice versa. There are variations. There are instances the place there are important variations. There are instances the place you see extra funding in children while you give transfers to the mother, possibly extra funding in a enterprise while you give transfers to males. That’s a sample that I feel suits individuals’s priors. However by the way in which, there are additionally instances the place there’s greater impacts on children’ vitamin while you give transfers to the boys. And there’s, I feel, good proof that many ladies have enterprises that they may, in precept, spend money on, however it’s more durable for them to maintain the cash protected and hold different individuals from getting their arms on it, form of pressuring them for it. So I feel it’s only a very nuanced story. I don’t assume there’s a transparent That is the best individual, by way of the impacts.
For me, this one is rather more nearly, like, on a priori grounds, we have a look at the whole lot we find out about empowerment, about who has the form of rights to determine how family sources are used. It’s very inequitable, proper? Ladies usually have a lot much less say in a whole lot of issues. So to me, that is one the place I don’t assume that the best solution to go about it’s to go do a bunch of these items and attempt to present within the information someway that you just get a much bigger remedy impact on some specific final result. It’s extra like, I feel fairness actually issues, and so I feel it’s good to offer sources to individuals who have much less management over them to start with.
Demsas: How do you consider the steadiness there? As a result of an enormous factor that you just laid out for us is that the worldwide NGO neighborhood was not sufficiently involved with outcomes, and it required form of the randomized managed trial (RCT) revolution and work by you and organizations like GiveWell that centered on effectiveness and, actually, rating and charity navigators that basically tried to pressure NGOs and pressure international support communities to assume extra deeply in regards to the impression there. How do you steadiness simply specializing in form of the uncooked advantages which you can measure and quantify within the spreadsheet versus values which are tougher to indicate up in improvement statistics?
Niehaus: Nice query. And first I’d say, I feel you talked about the NGOs. Actually true, I feel, that many NGOs are rather more proof centered as of late than they had been up to now, and that’s been factor.
However hey, I imply, let’s keep in mind: NGOs are going to observe the cash. I feel that the method—and I’m an enormous fan of the entire proof revolution and of final result measurement and all of that—however it’s nonetheless a really top-down, technocratic course of the place anyone ready of energy who has the cash says, Right here’s the result that I need to obtain. After which individuals exit and check out to determine the easiest way of doing it, after which they arrive again and say, Listed here are the outcomes. After which they get to determine which factor appears most engaging, given the impacts, versus a course of the place the those that we’re finally making an attempt to profit have a significant say in what will get carried out.
Money transfers are clearly an instance of that. That’s, like, an excessive case the place we’re going to say, We’re going to offer all the cash instantly to those individuals and allow them to say what they need to get carried out, what they need to prioritize. However there are different less-extreme ways in which it occurs or that you may think about doing it the place individuals haven’t just a few form of participatory course of—within the sense that we’ll discuss to individuals, however then, on the finish of the day, we’re going to retain energy and determine what to do—however individuals are given actual management over how sources get used.
In order that, to me, is an important intestine examine on the whole lot else, as a result of if I are available in and say, I actually care about well being—I’m a well being man, let’s say—that’s nice. Clearly, individuals dwelling in poverty additionally care loads about well being and in regards to the well being of their members of the family, however it’s not the one factor. And so there needs to be some form of intestine examine or course of examine that claims, Am I actually nonetheless type of pursuing issues in a method that’s per their values and their priorities?
Demsas: Returning a bit bit to your paper: Your paper doesn’t instantly say what one ought to do with the intention to scale back excessive poverty. It’s a descriptive paper. It’s not one which’s taking a look at causation instantly, however it does point out that giant reductions in excessive poverty aren’t actually about transfers. Is that as a result of they had been inadequate over the time interval you’re finding out, or is it as a result of these are simply dwarfed by issues like financial development and different kinds of adjustments in individuals’s lives?
Niehaus: Yeah. Transfers in our information had been small, for probably the most half. Should you look in virtually all of the international locations on the individuals who bought out of poverty, after getting out of poverty, transfers are a reasonably negligible share of their revenue, of a few share factors. And so what meaning is simply that we weren’t form of making an attempt to get individuals out of poverty with a program—a really bold, large-scale program—of transfers at the moment.
What we had been doing in most of these international locations is making an attempt to make use of it to offset a few of these shocks that we talked about, to type of make the slope a bit bit much less slippery. And so that you see that the people who find themselves getting a bigger share of their revenue from transfers are the those that had been making unfavourable progress, the those that had been falling again into poverty.
There’s one exception to that reality, which is attention-grabbing, which is South Africa, which has traditionally had extraordinarily beneficiant social transfers—pensions and others, child-support grants, and so forth. And so that you’ll see in South Africa a lot bigger shares of individuals’s earnings coming from these public transfers. However even there, the individuals who bought out of poverty are going to see that share decline by loads. They’re not getting out of poverty as a result of the federal government is ramping up transfers. They’re getting out of poverty in different methods.
Demsas: Does that point out to you that transfers don’t play a big function in decreasing excessive poverty?
Niehaus: Properly, I imply, transfers are going to cut back excessive poverty very mechanically, proper? Should you give anyone $1 a day, they’re going to have $1 extra a day. So no. I feel what it signifies is that type of the way in which we’ve thought in regards to the function of transfers has been social safety. And that’s precisely the language that’s used for many cash-transfer packages, which I feel is an excellent factor.
I feel that now simply within the final 5, 10 years, we’re beginning to consider transfers in a extra bold method. Which is, (A): Might they be graduative? Might we give individuals sufficient cash to essentially push them over the road? After which (B) the query that I’m enthusiastic about and would love for us to speak about a bit bit is: If we needed to design a program that might finish excessive poverty utilizing transfers, how a lot would that price? As a result of I feel we’re truly fairly near it. That’s not a query that we’ve requested earlier than, however I feel we will now.
Demsas: I need to get to that, however the factor I’m making an attempt to press on right here is: Should you’re a person taking a look at this paper—and I do know you talked about it’s one paper; we don’t need to simply say that is the top all, be all of descriptive statistics on excessive poverty—however it signifies that an important factor to concentrate on is financial development, proper?
I feel the factor that most individuals take into consideration after they see the logic of financial development being so huge compared to different interventions is: Is it simply that we don’t truly know as people and NGOs and governments learn how to truly spur that form of change? And so we’re doing the second-best factor, which is, Alright, let’s simply ship individuals cash and do charity and do different kinds of types of support. Or is it that you just assume it’s attainable to get these huge reductions, like what you described originally of this episode, roughly 40 % of individuals dwelling in excessive poverty to 10 %. Is it actually attainable to get these sorts of ranges of adjustments by packages like GiveDirectly?
Niehaus: For certain. The way in which I’d take into consideration the function of the paper is: It’s actually not telling us what the high-return issues are to do—actually not. And that’s what most of improvement economics over the past decade or extra has been about. And so, clearly, nobody paper goes to realize that for all of those various things. I feel what it may well do is give us some clues as to the place to look. And as economists, we actually need to be enthusiastic about what the investments are that individuals may like to have the ability to make that they’ll’t, as a result of they don’t have the sources, or they face another constraint.
As a result of that’s what’s going to drive—you speak about financial development. We actually care about, form of, development. However inside this small subset—the subset of people who find themselves, type of, within the left tail of the revenue distribution—so, you realize, financial development for them may imply paying the associated fee emigrate or taking the dangers emigrate. Or it would imply investing the capital required to start out your individual enterprise, which we noticed was a driver of poverty discount for lots of people.
So the way in which we will use leads to a paper like that is to ask ourselves the place to look and what kinds of issues look like they could be high-return pathways for those that not lots of them are capable of take, as a result of they’ll’t get the cash to do it within the first place.
Demsas: And also you talked about that you just assume it’s attainable. I imply, this has been a UN improvement aim for some time: to finish excessive poverty by, I feel, 2030, which individuals at the moment are projecting, because of the pandemic’s impact on growing the variety of individuals in excessive poverty, is probably going not going to occur. Do you assume that 2030 deadline is unlikely to occur? And the way would you design a program to really finish excessive poverty?
Niehaus: I feel it’s unlikely to occur underneath the established order, simply trying on the world as it’s and at what’s occurring. I feel it’s very doable. And what I’d do—by way of suggestions, what we might do: I’d form of break up it into two components. I feel there are terribly high-return methods of serving to individuals in excessive poverty, which we must always do and which we will do for a restricted variety of individuals.
So that you talked about, like, GiveWell, for instance. They’ll advocate issues like mattress nets for individuals who dwell in areas with a whole lot of malaria, with a excessive prevalence of malaria. Or they’ll advocate deworming for youths who dwell in areas with a excessive worm load. And so these are going to be extraordinarily high-return issues that we will do to assist that set of people that face that one specific difficulty.
If we need to do one thing actually bold, like finish excessive poverty by 2030, we’re going to want possibly a portfolio of methods or possibly one thing that works in all places and for everyone. And so a part of what I discover very compelling about direct transfers is that they try this, proper? Money is related, no matter your difficulty is, wherever you reside, no matter your drawback is, proper? Cash’s probably the most versatile factor that we can provide individuals to assist them. And in addition, the numbers on money transfers and poverty, I feel, are very compelling. Like, the worldwide extreme-poverty hole—the entire quantity by which people who find themselves poor on the planet at the moment are under that poverty line—estimates vary between possibly $100–$150 billion a yr.
Demsas: That’s not that a lot.
Niehaus: And you set that in international context—that’s like 0.1 % or 0.15 % of worldwide GDP. So if we might discover all people and provides them the precise amount of cash they should recover from the road, to finance that, you and I, all people, we’d all want to surrender 0.1 % or 0.15 % of our revenue, which I feel is a cut price. I feel most of us can be keen to make that. You are taking, like, the common American form of making $50,000 a yr. What does that imply? Which means 75 bucks. So if I ask, Would you be keen to surrender 75 bucks, and that might be your half for ending excessive poverty? I feel the reply is, in my expertise, completely. And so I don’t assume individuals understand how shut we’re.
The issue is we don’t know precisely learn how to exit and discover all people and provides them precisely the amount of cash they should recover from the road. And so I’m truly actively engaged on that proper now, and we’ll get you a solution, which is: Possibly it’s, like, 0.2 % or 0.3 % as a result of there’s going to be some buffer, as a result of we don’t know precisely how a lot cash completely different individuals want. However I feel that, undoubtedly, the reply from that is going to be that there’s a possible, shovel-ready method of ending excessive poverty that might price a lot lower than you assume and is one thing you’d really feel actually good about ethically—that, like, I did my half to finish this factor.
Demsas: Yeah. So that you introduced up GiveWell, and there was one thing actually attention-grabbing that occurred inside the GiveWell world. It’s a corporation that directs charitable contributions, and importantly for this dialog, they consider charities on their effectiveness. And GiveWell and others have typically used cash-transfer packages and, of their case, significantly GiveDirectly’s cash-transfer program because the benchmark with which to guage different charities. That’s, like: How a lot better is your program than simply giving that cash on to individuals in want? Like, it’s good to show that it’d be higher for us to pay to arrange this complete group to do something—vaccinate individuals, no matter it’s—that might be higher for individuals’s outcomes than simply giving them money to do no matter they should do, together with getting vaccinations.
So in 2022, they up to date their only charities to exclude GiveDirectly, pointing as a substitute to a few malaria-prevention packages, a vitamin-A supplementation program, and a vaccine-incentive program in northern Nigeria. On the finish of final yr, they really additionally evaluated the impression of unconditional money transfers once more and located that GiveDirectly was three to 4 instances as cost-effective than they beforehand estimated, however they nonetheless assume that these different 4 charities are considerably cheaper than GiveDirectly. Did this analysis change or have an effect on how you consider GD’s work?
Niehaus: That’s precisely what we needed to do. I feel once we got down to begin GiveDirectly, we mentioned money transfers absolutely aren’t the one factor that we needs to be spending global-development cash on, however what’s lacking while you have a look at the sector is a bit little bit of this intestine examine of, like, Okay, I feel I’ve a good suggestion. I feel I’ve proof. I’ve all these things. Am I assured that I’m higher at spending this cash than the one who’s truly there, dwelling it, coping with it, and is aware of what they want, maybe higher than I do?
And so I simply actually respect that GiveWell have form of baked that into the way in which they now consider different organizations and form of the way in which they consider the world. And I feel it’s actually good and actually essential to have a corporation like GiveWell that’s on the market saying, What can we try this’s truly higher than what individuals dwelling in excessive poverty might do for themselves? As a result of they’ll do a whole lot of actually good issues for themselves. And the replace that you just talked about—the three to 4 instances more practical—I feel displays a few of that, in addition to making an allowance for a number of the mixture impacts of the transfers, just like the macroeconomic impacts of the transfers.
So in any given yr, I feel we would make the lower by way of being on their very prime checklist, or we would not. However I feel that mind-set in regards to the world, which is, like, Yeah, there’s some stuff the place you want some coordination proper there, externalities and public items and issues like this we have to resolve. However, like, our default ought to at all times be transfers. I feel that’s precisely the best method to consider it.
Demsas: Do you assume that more cash within the international support neighborhood needs to be going in direction of these sorts of public-health packages that GiveWell is doing over money transfers? Do you agree with their rating?
Niehaus: It’s a query of: If I had been to consider the place to offer $1—form of a given finite amount of cash—then there’s a robust case for it. I feel that the half that they don’t worth that we’ve at all times felt at GiveDirectly is that—I feel it’s true that GiveDirectly has contributed, to some extent, to serving to to essentially shift perceptions within the sector extra broadly. Money transfers have now change into an enormous a part of how a whole lot of global-development work is finished. And I feel there are a whole lot of different those that now ask this query of, like, Properly, we might are available in and design a program, attempt to transfer outcomes, all these things. However are we certain that’s higher than simply giving cash?
So I feel if there’s, like, an unpriced a part of GiveDirectly’s work that I feel isn’t mirrored within the GiveWell rating, it’s that. And that’s exhausting to cost, and I feel we’d all agree with that. So I’m okay with it. However, you realize, I don’t assume it’s either-or. We needs to be doing each of these items, and we’re.
Demsas: I really feel like I’ve cited this, like, 5 instances on the present already, so apologies, listeners who know this already. Nevertheless it simply jogs my memory a whole lot of Amartya Sen’s arguments about improvement as freedom, and that it’s clearly essential to heart the literal metrics. Like, are individuals higher off, and might you measure that? And in addition to understand that there are particular issues about—the explanation we care about improvement to start with is as a result of it offers individuals entry to freedoms. Like, are you free to decide on the way you need to dwell your life? Are you free to make selections to your youngsters, for your loved ones, and be free from discrimination and free from abuse? And that it may well’t at all times be measured, these democratic freedoms. Like, do you be at liberty to talk your thoughts about issues? It’s exhausting to indicate that on a spreadsheet, however that’s essential.
And I requested you this earlier as a result of I wrestle with this, too, as a result of a whole lot of the issues that I care about, whether or not it’s gender egalitarianism or the rights of varied marginalized teams worldwide, you possibly can see how typically a concentrate on that may transfer individuals away from being rigorous about whether or not their work is definitely serving to individuals, as a result of it’s exhausting to measure these issues. Like, you are able to do surveys, however even these kinds of issues are sometimes actually riddled with error, whether or not it’s simply, like, individuals’s perceptions shift or no matter it’s. Like, how do you measure whether or not individuals are completely happy on gender-egalitarian grounds? It’s simply open questions. And I ponder, like, how do you wrestle with that drawback and just be sure you’re capable of steadiness each of these issues?
Niehaus: I like what you mentioned. It jogs my memory of a number of the encounters we had within the very earliest days beginning GiveDirectly. I keep in mind, specifically, we had an awesome dialog with Duncan Inexperienced, who was at Oxfam on the time, speaking about a number of the cash-transfer programming they’ve carried out and speaking about a number of the issues individuals did with the cash that might not present up in any of the metrics.
However that basically form of provoked deep thought of: What’s the level of worldwide improvement? And Amartya Sen, proper? Am I actually purchased into that? Am I okay with that? They discovered, for instance, in one in every of these packages that lots of people—there’s a program in Vietnam, and lots of people use transfers to buy coffins as a result of for them, culturally, religiously, it was essential to be buried in a coffin and never in an open grave. And that’s not one thing that I feel anyone ever measures in our surveys, proper? However what if that’s essential to you? Am I okay with that?
And in my very own experiences with GiveDirectly fieldwork, I keep in mind: We interviewed a man who was a part of the basic-income venture that we had been doing and had labored as a safety guard in a city to earn cash and ship a refund to his household, after which who lived within the village. After which when he began getting transfers, he give up that job and moved again, going to dwell within the village, earn much less cash however see his children extra typically.
Once more, that’s going to appear like an revenue discount within the information that we usually acquire. It’s as a result of we aren’t nice at measuring issues like the standard of your relationships along with your children, that are what I feel truly issues in life. So I simply assume that it’s tremendous, tremendous essential to take all the measurements, the result stuff, with a grain of salt and with that humility, and form of making an attempt to keep in mind that individuals’s personal views on what they need out of their lives are essential if we actually take that Senian perspective.
Demsas: It’s humorous as a result of there’s a subset of individuals the place I’m like, Okay, yeah, you must take this extra significantly. However broadly, I discover that once I’m speaking to individuals within the charitable-giving area, it’s like, possibly they’re not taking the effectiveness significantly sufficient. And it’s like, which message does any particular person have to obtain?
And type of on that, we briefly touched on the UN’s aim of ending excessive poverty by 2030. Once you have a look at the worldwide support and the work that completely different governments are doing, is the worldwide neighborhood largely centered on doing the best factor? What would you alter—possibly setting apart what’s happening within the US for a second—what would you alter about how international locations, intergovernmental organizations, etcetera are doing to attempt to truly assault this drawback?
Niehaus: Properly, it’s a extremely attention-grabbing second, and I feel that truly taking the establishments as given could be a mistake. We’d need to truly form of reimagine the establishments themselves to some extent.
Demsas: You imply, like, the UN?
Niehaus: The entire structure for support. So when you take, for instance, the UN structure for humanitarian response, it’s constructed round these silos that say we’re going to have some organizations which are centered on shelter, some organizations which are centered on meals, some organizations which are centered on training, and so forth. And so in a world the place service provision is finished by NGOs, you then want that specialization, proper? As a result of it’s good to type of choose one thing and be good at it.
In a world the place we’re going to offer cash to particular person individuals and allow them to determine what they need to do with it, and extra of the availability—the service provision—goes to be carried out by markets, possibly we don’t want that very same institutional construction. And in reality, seeing the way in which that’s performed out inside the United Nations system because it’s change into, in humanitarian work particularly, rather more receptive to it, I feel individuals now agree that money switch needs to be a a lot greater a part of humanitarian response. It doesn’t form of match very neatly proper inside that system.
So I feel it might be—and John McArthur and Homi Kharas at Brookings form of steered this, as nicely, that it could be time for a brand new multilateral that’s centered on direct transfers. And that might allow us to assume a bit in a different way, versus making an attempt to suit new wine into outdated wineskins, so to talk.
However by way of the issues that we might be doing, look—now we have 20 years now of actually rigorous proof on cost-effectiveness and impactfulness. And so there are a bunch of issues which are unbelievable. Should you’re questioning, like, Do we all know good issues to do with cash? Sure. We all know nice issues to do in training which are actually efficient at enhancing studying outcomes. We all know nice issues to do in public well being that scale back illness burdens and enhance individuals’s lives for lengthy intervals after that.
And now we have money transfers, that are simply a good way of serving to individuals do no matter it’s they need to do, and have an infinite proof base individuals are utilizing cash responsibly. They’re usually not losing it. They’re usually not utilizing it in self-harm methods, like consuming it away or smoking it away. And in lots of instances, they’re making investments which have long-lasting impacts on their lives.
So the purpose is, like, now we have a lot good things to do. And we, up till now, have been doing a whole lot of stuff that’s actually based mostly on outdated pondering, proper? This form of good-on-paper-type reasoning, “Train a person to fish” kind pondering. And seeing USAID basically evaporate in a single day, clearly it’s form of a gut-check second, however I feel it’s additionally a chance to rethink how we do the entire thing.
Demsas: Properly, I feel that’s a good time for our final and ultimate query. Paul, what’s one thing that you just as soon as thought was a good suggestion however ended up being simply good on paper?
Niehaus: So I’d say—and I form of mentioned this earlier, however—I feel that concept of educating a person to fish is one thing that once I first heard it made a whole lot of sense and appeared good on paper. However, like, as we began to check impression over the past 20 years and say, like, What impression do our fishing classes even have? I don’t assume it really works very nicely; the info don’t help it.
Demsas: We’re unhealthy at educating individuals learn how to fish.
Niehaus: Unpack that a bit bit, proper? I imply, when you take it a bit bit too actually than it’s meant to be, it presumes that the man doesn’t know learn how to fish within the first place. Possibly, truly, he did know, and what he wanted was a fishing rod. It presumes that the lake isn’t getting overfished, proper? Possibly there are tons of individuals on the market fishing, and the massive difficulty is form of overextraction of pure sources, and we undoubtedly shouldn’t be educating extra individuals to fish, proper? It presumes, as you mentioned, proper, that we’re good at educating individuals learn how to fish. Possibly we’re not. Possibly it’s exhausting, and it’s not one thing that we all know learn how to do nicely. So there are all these kinds of assumptions baked into it, and that’s why it’s essential to check. And also you exit and take a look at it, it truly doesn’t.
The opposite factor that I feel is admittedly attention-grabbing—I’ll simply riff on this a bit bit about educating a person to fish—is the origins of it. So at the moment you hear it, and the way in which we interpret it’s it’s saying, like, Don’t simply give individuals cash, as a result of they’re not going to make use of it in ways in which have a long-lasting profit. It’s essential to type of assist them in these different methods, which I feel is simply empirically unfaithful.
However truly, when you hint it again, the primary place that I’ve been capable of finding it, it reveals up on this Victorian novelist Anne Thackeray Ritchie, and he or she has this ironic character in one in every of her novels saying that the explanation that we don’t do these items is as a result of prosperous individuals actually don’t need it. They mentioned you may actually assist anyone make progress, however prosperous individuals would really feel uncomfortable with that—it might upend the social order. So it’s humorous that the origins of the time period are literally this critique of inequality and of individuals’s unwillingness to—
Demsas: Wow. I’ve by no means heard that.
Niehaus: However someway, over time, it’s utterly modified. And now the interpretation is: You may’t belief individuals to make monetary decisions for themselves. That’s not what it initially meant.
Demsas: Yeah. Properly, Paul, thanks a lot for approaching the present.
Niehaus: Pleasure to be right here. Thanks a lot.
[Music]
Demsas: Good on Paper is produced by Rosie Hughes, edited by Dave Shaw, fact-checked by Ena Alvarado, and engineered by Erica Huang. Our theme music consists by Rob Smierciak. Claudine Ebeid is the chief producer of Atlantic audio and Andrea Valdez is our managing editor. I’m Jerusalem Demsas.
Thanks once more for listening. And hold an ear on this area for when to count on new episodes from Good on Paper.