I've been considering this notion for a while now. Over the course of my relationship with Peru, my view has shifted from "in the moment" to sustainable development. It all started with Vivi's toes, all smushed up in her shoes, three sizes too small. It snowballed into "Soles for Soles," providing over 75 kids in Cuzco with new shoes. The next year, we brought socks. We gave a lot of gifts. Being vaguely research minded, I've done some digging about all of this gift giving altruism. Is it helping? TOMS critics shed some light on why it really isn't.There are so many reasons why gifts don't mean "aid."
"Avoid paternalism. Do not do things for people that they can do for themselves. Memorize this, recite it under your breath all day long, and wear it like a garland around your neck (Corbett & Fikkert, p.115)."
- Have I created a dependency? Probably not, since I'm only there once a year, at best. My heart hurts too much to think too hard about this.Yes, my students' parents have gainful employment. They make between $3- 10/ day, and use this money to provide for their families. Can I rationalize NOT giving them assistance by saying they may become dependent on my gifts? Not in this heart.
- "How would you feel if someone walked into your home, took note of the surroundings, decided that you needed a number of things that you neither had nor wanted, and then went out and bought them for you? You may feel demeaned or looked down upon. It may appear that the person who entered your home thinks they are better than you. And regardless of your reaction, such unwanted gifts would not encourage you to work harder to earn more to buy the things which were given. Rather, if such gifts came repeatedly over time a more likely effect would be to remove any incentive to work, as you could count on that outsider to provide for you anything they thought you needed."
The other issue cited by many foreign aid critics is the harm done to local economies if outside gifts are brought in. Could they buy a t-shirt where they live? Then don't give them yours. Here's what a Time Magazine article said about it:
- "It's not that hard to get shirts in Africa. Flooding the market with free goods could bankrupt the people who already sell them. Donating clothing is a sensitive topic in Africa because many countries' textile industries collapsed under the weight of secondhand-clothing imports that were introduced in the 1970s and '80s. "First you have destroyed these villages' ability to be industrious and produce cotton products, and then you're saying, 'Can I give you a T-shirt?' and celebrating about it?" says James Shikwati, director of the Nairobi-based Inter Region Economic Network, a think tank. "It's really like offering poison coated with sugar.""
- Again, I am more thankful than you could know that our first round of shoe donations came from local vendors. I had no knowledge or even awareness of sustainable practice the first time I was there. And, that wasn't where my head was at during round 2, either. I wish all those socks came from the markets there.
Backing up, here's what BD Keller says, using World Vision as a case study:
- "For a second, let’s assume that GIK doesn’t have any negative or positive effects — let’s pretend it has absolutely no impact whatsoever. (In fact, this may be a decently good approximation of reality.) Even then, WV would have to account for how much they spent on the programs. How much did WV spend in staff time, administrative costs like facilities, and field research by their local partners coordinating donations with NFL and other corporate groups? On receiving, sorting, shipping, paying import taxes, and distributing their gifts-in-kind? If they’ve distributed 375,000 shirts over the last few years, and done all of the background research they describe as being necessary to be sensitive to local needs… I’m sure it’s an awful lot of money, surely in the millions."
- KONY 2012 is a campaign created by Invisible Children, a highly controversial nonprofit. In the nonprofit sector, Invisible Children doesn't have a great reputation. Granted, according to the "Passion Generation," it is doing everything and changing the world and super awesome. Invisible Children has the same conundrum as World Vision and many others... is the allocation of resources really effective?
- "Last year, the organization spent $8,676,614. Only 32% went to direct services (page 6), with much of the rest going to staff salaries, travel and transport, and film production. This is far from ideal, and Charity Navigator rates their accountability 2/4 stars because they haven’t had their finances externally audited. But it goes way deeper than that (Oyston)."
The issues with Invisible Children go way deeper -- to military intervention, rape, and looting -- but Oyston makes a big, big point, that transcends to 1,000,000 people. Let's think on it.- "If people know this and still support Invisible Children because they feel it’s the best solution based on their knowledge and research, I have no issue with that. But I don’t think most people are in that position, and that’s a problem."
- The gifts were not extreme, or regular. There is likely not a culture of dependence as it relates to me personally, although I certainly edified the third world - first world paternalism conundrum.
- The shoes were bought in the local market. Socks came from here. Wish I hadn't brought the socks.
- I did my best.
So here's the thing. Do your best. Know what you support.
Sources:
Steve Corbett and Brian Fikkert, 2009. When Helping Hurts: How to Alleviate Poverty Without Hurting the Poor and Yourself.
Visible Children
TOMS: A Discussion on Bad Aid
Brett Keller, "Prove me wrong: why World Vision should change, but won’t"
KONY 2012 from INVISIBLE CHILDREN on Vimeo.
Learn some more.
** If you're into this post. Read on. Kevin provides some great suggestions on how to give the right kind of aid, and many links to learn more. Ch-ch-check it.
Thanks for indulging some of the leftie's views.
No comments:
Post a Comment