The lack of funds is typically a symptom of one or more underlying issues and not the root cause of being poor. How would throwing money at a symptom solve the problem?
But to buy your way out of these problems will probably cost a lot more than the experiments the article cites. Like 10x more at least. Try it with 20k instead of 2k and I bet the outcomes will be much better.
And of course, for some people that money will hurt more than it helps. It will only help if the recipient is in the right mental space to make a serious go at turning their life around. Otherwise you'll just be enabling their self destruction. I don't have the answers for how such a program could be successfully run.
That's just your conjecture. Monetary help given at the right time can and often does break the cycle. The easiest way for this to happen is by the troubled person getting help from their family or friends. For instance, they may be lent a car and given a place to stay so they can save money without paying rent. Friends or family are in a good position to judge when somebody is serious and ready change their life for the better, or will just continue the cycle. They can and should withhold help until that person is ready.
For a government program to be as effective is dubious because it lacks that effective feedback mechanism. As I said, I don't pretend to know how such a program could be effectively run. I am only responding to the premise that money (or equivalent, such as lent vehicles) can't actually be the missing link that allows people to put their lives back together. People who have access to such support frequently do success, while those who don't usually won't.