As someone with a Bachelor's degree in Economics, I agree with virtually all of them. The only one that stands out to me as something I am skeptical about is
12. Cash payments increase the welfare of recipients to a greater degree than do transfers-in-kind of equal cash value.
The only reason I am skeptical is that I worry that cash payments may have a tendency to get squandered in drugs, alcohol, gambling, and other frivolous spending as opposed to being invested in something related to education or something, but I can also see how giving people cash would make it easier for them to use it on the things they need. Also it could improve perceived well-being which might be what really matters to people more than how one performs on things typically measured to make inferences about one's well-being.
I'm glad you mentioned this one. So what is a "transfer-in-kind"? Is that what food stamps, or WIC represent? I also agree that straight cash can lead to suspect purchases, but people even find loopholes with the WIC (tobacco products, booze).
That is how I interpreted it, also stuff like housing vouchers would apply I think.
yes, anything that isn't generally accepted as cash is a transfer in kind
most 'welfare' in the US is of that variety ---
He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.