Thanks. I think there is any disagreement that poverty reduction is a moral obligation. The question we're grappling with is how to best tackle that problem in a world with limited resources. We could advocate to expand the resources OR we could simply not have any programs (other than palliative cash transfers to prevent the worst outcomes) and focus on growth to pull people and countries out of poverty. Or, we can investigate which programs (regardless of cost - note that there is no mention of cost-effectiveness in my post: we're just looking for some evidence of growth, even if modest) are more effective in having some success in pulling people out of poverty and minimizing the chances that they fall back into it. If none do better than simple UCTs, some would advocate to give up, but that feels wrong to me. I believe we can and should be able to do better...

Thanks again for reading and posting a comment.