by
Guy Standing
[...] Once the cash transfers started, parents had enough money to pay school fees, and teachers had money to buy paper, pens, books, posters, paints and brushes, making the school more attractive to parents and children and raising the moral and, probably, the capacity of its teachers.
2008-2009 (small village of 1000 people), with a state-run primary school that required a fee, which many parents couldn't pay
the fact that you needed a "pilot" to be run to ensure this would happen is mind-blowing. sure it's a classic market failure example, but is it not the job of the government to ensure that the economy works??? is that not the whole point??? if the government recognises that primary school education is a good idea, is it not so obviously important to ensure that it's well funded even at the potential psychological cost of printing money? god, what drift