New York City police used force overnight to zip-tie the hands of dozens of Columbia University student protesters and haul them away in buses, clearing the encampment two weeks after tents first popped up. Secretary of State Antony Blinken is back in Israel to pressing for more aid to Palestinians in Gaza — and a hostage deal. And Florida's six-week abortion ban takes effect today — with exceptions only in rare circumstances.
Want more comprehensive analysis of the most important news of the day, plus a little fun? Subscribe to the Up First newsletter.
Today's episode of Up First was edited by Kevin Drew, Vincent Ni, Acacia Squires, Lisa Thomson and Ben Adler. It was produced by Ziad Buchh, Ben Abrams and Lilly Quiroz. We get engineering support from Stacey Abbott, and our technical director is Zac Coleman.
Here's a thought experiment: You want to spend a reasonably large sum of money providing assistance to a group of people with limited means. There's a lot of ways you might do that with a lot of strings and safeguards involved, but what about just giving them money -- "get cash directly into the hands of the poor in the cheapest, most efficient way possible." You and I might prefer that, since we, of course, are reputable people and good stewards and understand our own particular needs. But what about, well, others?
Economist Tavneet Suri has done more than just think about that; her fieldwork includes handing out money across villages in two rural areas in Kenya to see what happens. Her experiments include giving out a lump sum of cash and also spreading out that same amount over time. The results she details for host David Edmonds in this Social Science Bites podcast are, to be frank, heartening, although the mechanisms of disbursement definitely affect the outcomes.
Despite the good news, the idea of a universal basic income is by no means a settled remedy for helping the poor. For one thing, Suri says, "it's super, super expensive. It’s really expensive. And so, the question is, “Is that expense worth it?” And to understand that I think we need a few more years of understanding the benefits, understanding what people do with the incomes, understanding whether this can really kickstart these households out of poverty."
And perhaps the biggest question is whether the results of fieldwork in Kenya is generalizable. "I would love to do a study that replicates this in the West," she says. "The one thing about the West that I think is worth saying that's different is you wouldn't add it on top of existing programs. The idea is you would substitute existing programs with this. And that to me is the question: if you substituted it, what would happen?"
Suri is the Louis E. Seley Professor of Applied Economics and at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Sloan School of Management. She is an editor at the Review of Economics and Statistics; co-chair of the Agricultural Technology Adoption Initiative at the Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab, known as J-PAL, at MIT; co-chair of the Digital Identification and Finance Initiative at J-PAL Africa; a member of the executive committee at J-PAL; and a faculty research fellow at the National Bureau of Economic Research.
Today's guest, or should I say last year's guest, is Steve Vladeck! He holds the Charles Alan Wright Chair in Federal Courts at the University of Texas School of Law, and is a nationally recognized expert on the federal courts, constitutional law, national security law, and military justice. Last year, he released the New York Times bestselling book, "The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic." We spoke about the book and about the state of our horrible Supreme Court. Steve will be appearing on Opening Arguments soon for a sequel to this conversation!
Are you an expert in something and want to be on the show? Apply here!
Please please pretty please support the show on patreon! You get ad free episodes, early episodes, and other bonus content
Today, we're breaking down the latest college campus protests, the frivolity of the White House Correspondents' Dinner, and reviewing what Americans find sexiest in men's style. Tune in!
When we think of censorship, our minds might turn to state agencies exercising power to silence dissent. However, contemporary concerns about censorship arise in contexts where non-state actors suppress expression and communication. There are subtle and not-so-subtle forms of interference that come from social groups, employers, media corporations, and even search engines. Should these “new” forms of censorship alarm us? Should we assess them in ways that mirror our typical views about state-enacted censorship? If not, how should we think about non-state modes of censorship?
In Private Censorship (Oxford University Press, 2024), JP Messina takes up these broad questions. He examines a range of emerging sites of non-state censorship – what he calls “private” censorship – and sorts through the normative, political, and legal issues.
The Department of Justice took a significant step on Tuesday to downgrade federal restrictions on marijuana. The DOJ submitted a formal recommendation to the White House to reclassify it as a Schedule III drug. It’s a monumental shift in federal drug policy because, for more than 50 years, the U.S. government has considered marijuana to be among the most dangerous drugs, on par with heroin and LSD. Krishna Andavolu, the host and executive producer of the Vice TV show Weediquette, explains what reclassification could mean for businesses, medicine, and criminal justice.
And in headlines: The New York judge overseeing Donald Trump’s criminal hush-money trial fined the former president $9,000 for violating a gag order, police arrested students that had occupied Hamilton Hall on Columbia University’s campus, and a key federal task force issued new recommendations for women and breast cancer screenings.