Debunking the Stereotype of the Lazy Welfare Recipient: Evidence from Cash Transfer Programs Worldwide

193 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Exploring Universal Basic Income: A Guide to Navigating Concepts, Evidence, and Practices (2019, background): “It is also commonly expected that such incentives could be affected by the value and type of transfers for which informal workers are eligible and how these compare with the conditions of formal work (Banerjee et al. 2015; Bosch and Manacorda 2012; Levy 2008).”
THE SHORT-TERM IMPACT OF UNCONDITIONAL CASH TRANSFERS TO THE POOR: EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FROM KENYA (2016, unknown): “…cash transfers affect labor supply negatively, in line with existing findings (Posel, Fairburn, and Lund 2006; Ardington, Case, and Hosegood 2009; Banerjee et al. 2015b), and that they may in fact affect it positively.22 We did not study how transfers affect labor supply by children (Edmonds…”
Informality: Causes and Consequences for Development (2020, background): “Despite the gains from these programs in terms of reducing poverty, improving educational outcomes and access to health services, a long-standing concern is that they might discourage work (Banerjee et al. 2017).”
The effects of cash transfers on adult labor market outcomes (2018, methodology): “Hence, the program had some general equilibrium effect on wages in these rural village economies.19 The TUP model was adapted to suit different contexts while staying true to the same overall principles of design and evaluated in six other countries: Ethiopia, Ghana, Honduras, India, Pakistan, and P”