I believe his point is that when the food credit is given all at once it's not spent wisely and thus food runs out faster.
When it's spread out you're more likely to spend it more wisely.
Exactly. I've known plenty of people who have trouble budgeting every two weeks, let alone twice a month or once a month. I've also known more than a few people who look "very well off" from the outside, yet still live paycheck-to-paycheck because every time they got a raise, they ending up spending more money each month.
In theory, getting paid once a month would be ideal, as it would ensure that you never have a cash flow issue.
In reality (and as this study suggests) people in general tend to spend more when they have a flush account, and end up blowing through what they should have budgeted. Hell, just look at the number of people on GAF who see their tax refund as "found money."
This research might indicate that simply giving money may be worse than giving food stamps. Because one takeaway is that people have difficulty consumption smoothing over time even when the money can only be spent on food.
If they were given equivalent amount of money, they might have an even harder time saving it for food as there are many non-food expenses they might have to spend it on (like rent, heating, water, etc.).
That was my takeaway as well.
From a purely abstract level, getting a single lump sum would seem to be better, as it would allow a person to buy staples in bulk (and get a better price per unit) while saving some to purchase fresh fruit/veggies/meat each week.
In reality, this study is saying that people don't do that, so it is better to ration the amount available to spend.
This is not a knock on the poor. It is a knock on the level of financial education across the US in general.
