Do welfare systems make the poor lazy? Economist Abhijit Banerjee shares historical data to debunk popular ‘stories’ | Today’s news

Nobel laureate and economist Abhijit Banerjee has a clear message. Giving money “for free” to the poor works. It doesn’t make them lazy. It is not addictive. It transforms lives. He shared these views in a candid interview with podcaster Raj Shamani on YouTube.

Abhijit Banerjee was not just talking from theory. He pointed to a large meta-analysis conducted before USAID was shut down. This study combined findings from 140 separate research projects. The central question was straightforward: Do elections make poor people work less?

The answer was clear. “They found that people who get freebies work a little bit more,” Banerjee said. “Not much more, but a little more. Not less.”

He emphasized the significance of this finding. The fear that prosperity breeds idleness lacks evidence. Across 140 studies, the data told a consistent story.

West Bengal Studies

The economist went further. He described a landmark study conducted in rural West Bengal. The research began in 1997 in a “poor” village. The researchers asked the villagers a simple question: Which of you is really poor? Villagers identified the most needy households. They were people so poor that other poor people recognized their condition.

Each family identified received a small productive asset. Some got a cow. The others got goats. Some had goods they could sell locally. The important thing is that they could choose for themselves. For a year, someone from the implementing organization visited them regularly. Support was simple but consistent.

Read also | Musk’s trillion-dollar salary for increasing his efficiency? Dear top economists

Then the researchers waited. They collected the data 17 years later. The results were startling. “The people who got this property are 40% richer,” Banerjee said. Their consumption has increased.

Their income grew. Their children moved into different types of work. “Their lives are changing,” he concluded.

The strength of this finding lies in its simplicity. One asset was given. No repeated papers followed. Yet, almost two decades later, the effect has not gone away. It came together.

Opportunity motivates

Shamani pressed Banerjee on the psychological issue. Why do people who have freeholds work harder than sit? Banerjee’s answer was rooted in human dignity.

According to him, poverty itself is demoralizing. Being trapped with no apparent escape does not motivate effort. It will crush it. “Being depressed and thinking your life is basically shit is not the way to get people excited about work,” he said.

When a person acquires an asset or opportunity, something changes. They begin to believe that a better future is possible. This belief drives action.

Read also | Nobel laureates Abhijit Banerjee, Esther Duflo to leave US. But why?

“When you give them the opportunity, they say: Now you can maybe have a better life. They are more excited to try things,” explained the Nobel laureate.

He challenged his audience to challenge their assumptions. “Why do we assume that poor people are psychologically different from everyone else?” he asked.

According to him, most people want a better life for their children. Most people want to live with dignity. “Why would we think that all humans are somehow different from us?” he asked.

Bihar program

The finds from West Bengal were not isolated. Banerjee described the large-scale implementation in Bihar. GDK, a semi-governmental body linked to the Ministry of Labour, has implemented a similar program. It reached one million families. A randomized control trial was conducted in part of this sample.

The results were equally decisive. Banerjee described the results as “very successful, dramatically successful”. The program is sometimes called a graduate program, a term Banerjee is familiar with with mild amusement. The name reflects its purpose: to help people permanently overcome extreme poverty.

The myth of the lazy poor

Abhijit Banerjee turned to Shamani’s second question. If the evidence is so clear, why do so many companies still believe that freelancing breeds laziness? His answer was honest and to the point.

He believes that successful people constantly overestimate the extent to which their success reflects personal merit. They underestimate the role of luck. Banerjee was candid about his circumstances.

I don’t think welfare systems are destroying the country

“I was born into a family of professors,” he said. His grandfather was a school teacher. His great grandfather was too. Books filled his childhood home.

“The fact that I can read and write and understand things is not an accident of my genius,” he said flatly. “It was just luck.

Read also | Amitav Ghosh enjoys Nobel laureate Abhijit Banerjee’s Bengali feast

His father gave him math puzzles. His parents encouraged intellectual discussion. This cultural capital was inherited, not earned.

When people attribute their success solely to effort, they begin to see the poverty of others as a personal failure. The poor didn’t deserve their position, goes the thinking. So they don’t deserve help.

Banerjee described it as a psychological trick people play on themselves. “They’re giving themselves too much credit,” he said.

There is also a self-serving element. If helping the poor is wasteful or harmful, then not helping them becomes morally defensible. “They tell themselves these stories,” Banerjee said, referring to wealthy individuals who resist charitable giving.

Government welfare programs: good or bad?

Raj Shamani further pressed Banerjee on the government’s social programmes. “Why do many people believe that welfare is bad for India, even though studies show that welfare helps poor households?” he asked.

Abhijit Banerjee said the concerns are different from debates over whether social benefits reduce work. According to him, many people do not like that tax money is redistributed to poorer groups. This sentiment often appears in public discussions and media narratives.

“I don’t think it’s destroying the country. But I think it (needs) to be replenished all the time. Remember, the country is also getting richer. It’s not like the proportion of GDP going to the poor has exploded dramatically. As the country gets richer, there’s more GST and there’s more money for welfare,” he said.

“However, the only concern that is real is the pursuit of visibility,” Banerjee said, referring to the political parties’ show-off. He also suggests that people in power should choose to give what people really need rather than what they want to provide.

He argued that social decisions should be disciplined and based on evidence. Governments should focus on long-term benefits rather than highly visible campaign announcements.

When Shamani shamelessly asks whether government welfare programs are good or bad, the economist has a straight answer.

“Overall, it means more money goes to the poor. So that’s good,” he said.