Just because an argument is generic, does not make it incorrect. And, to be clear, they are not arguments against all types of developing world charity, simply those which ignore the impact that they have on communities by increasing dependence, destroying jobs, and limiting freedom.
As for local mosquito net factories, if you lost your job just because some foreign NGO wanted to eliminate the flu (which kills about as many people as malaria every year), and you got absolutely no say in it, you might be singing a different tune. Why should a foreigner, get to decide that flu shots are more important than putting people to work? Why should you, a foreigner, get to decide that trying to eliminate a problem that most people here see as no more harmful than the flu, is more important than a local business and people’s jobs? You don’t know these people, what gives you the right to steal their jobs because you know better than they do?
Furthermore, on the first point, the problem is that when organizations are donating everything to these communities, food, medicine, nets, clothing, etc. they have no opportunities to grow their own industries. What is so wrong about asking the AMF to get nets that are made in the country that they will help? Why must we get nets shipped in and employ foreigners, at the expense of jobs in developing countries? Because if we actually built up an industry in the country, everyone at AMF would be out of a job. So long as they keep the country dependent on their mosquito nets, they will stay in business.
As for the second claim, here’s some further context: for searchers and planners, the problem is, the difference between need (what some outside group decides people are in need of) and demand (what people actually want). AMF goes into areas that need nets, they don’t go into areas that want nets. They go into areas that want jobs, electricity, or clean water. They don’t sit down with the community and say, what do you need the most? A new market? Okay we will get that for you. They sit down with a community and say, you need bed nets, we are going to give you bed nets. If you say that you don’t need them, we will go to the next village and give them bed nets instead. I have seen it. They do assessments of how many people get malaria in an area, not what people want if given the choice. To understand, think back to the comparison to the flu. Have you gotten a flu shot every single year? Why not? Maybe because you think that other things are more important. These communities do too. Governments and organizations may request funding and nets, but I have spoken to many communities up and down this country, and never have they said that the thing that they need is bed nets, or malaria reduction. This is top down because AMF is not talking to the actual recipients of the aid, they are talking to intermediary organizations or governments, who ignore the needs of the people, just as much as AMF.
Finally, here’s a quote from Give Directly “This year we plan to provide entire communities of people with a basic income: regular cash payments that are enough for them to live on, for more than 10 years.” They do not just give one time cash payments.
If you want to understand where I am coming from more, I would suggest spending time living in one of these communities served by these organizations. Maybe you will have a different experience to mine. But where I am, these organizations do more harm than good.
Are you against buying goods from other countries when it’s cheaper to get them from there, rather than manufacturing them domestically?
If you aren’t, you also shouldn’t be against a country receiving free bed nets. Receiving free goods from another country is just an extreme instance of goods being cheaper to buy from overseas (in this case for $0), which benefits the recipient country.
If we could get free clothes, free cars, free food, and so on from overseas, that would be awesome. People and capital are freed up to produce other good/services domestically rather than the ones which are now available at no cost.
AMF usually buys the nets from overseas because it’s cheaper to get them from there—where enormous factories have economies of scale to produce them cheaply. That’s where the locals should get them from as well if they want to buy them on the open market for personal use.
“never have they said that the thing that they need is bed nets, or malaria reduction”
In thats the case they can just not accept the nets, no harm done.
I am against it when unemployment is so staggering in a country that young people leave en mass because they have no future. I am against it when there is literally no industry in a country and a single factory could make a world of difference. I am against it when the people in the country do not have a choice in the matter, when they cannot say, oh I would rather buy a bed net to support my local business here than to buy one from a foreign company, and instead they are forced to take bed nets for free, destroying any possibility of fair competition.
As for the claim that if we could get free things from abroad, it would be great, have you ever lived somewhere were you get everything for free from aboard? I do. Over 95% of my country’s budget is straight aid. Everything is subsidized or donated. And it is horrible, no one has a job, (if you get free clothes, anyone that works at a clothing store is out of work, if you get free food anyone that works on a farm, or at a restaurant is out of work) so there is no capital lying around for you to do something with. We can’t produce anything here, because no one wants to invest in a developing country, they would rather help by donating their money to keep these harmful charities alive.
If AMF spent a little more money and helped to create factories in the countries that they worked, they would actually help the local economies, prevent brain drain, and allow people to help themselves, the problem is that then, everyone at AMF and the foreign factory would be out of a job, since the people in the country could handle it themselves. It is better for them to perpetuate the problem and increase dependence since that will keep them in business. Spending a little more could make a world of difference. And this is exactly the problem with only assessing charities on certain factors while ignoring others.
How can locals get something from abroad? Most retail companies do not ship here, and even if they did it would be drastically out of anyone’s price range. But not if they were made locally.
As for no one requesting bed nets, imagine that you go door to door in a town that makes matchsticks giving out free matchsticks for life. Imagine also that this town is sufficiently poor that if they can get something for free they don’t have a choice. If you asked them, they would say they needed more jobs, but you did not ask them what they wanted. You give out matchsticks and eventually the factory, the only source of income for many families here, shuts down. You did harm. People here can’t afford to refuse something that is given for free, and it hurts them in the long run. Why would it be so hard to use your money to give the community what they actually wanted? What gives you the right from afar to decide what a place you have never seen or visited needs? Why do you think that you know more about their lives than they do? Every day I see the harm that these organizations do, but since the recipients have no voice in these forums, the donors keep on doing their worst and patting themselves on the back for it.
Just because an argument is generic, does not make it incorrect. And, to be clear, they are not arguments against all types of developing world charity, simply those which ignore the impact that they have on communities by increasing dependence, destroying jobs, and limiting freedom.
As for local mosquito net factories, if you lost your job just because some foreign NGO wanted to eliminate the flu (which kills about as many people as malaria every year), and you got absolutely no say in it, you might be singing a different tune. Why should a foreigner, get to decide that flu shots are more important than putting people to work? Why should you, a foreigner, get to decide that trying to eliminate a problem that most people here see as no more harmful than the flu, is more important than a local business and people’s jobs? You don’t know these people, what gives you the right to steal their jobs because you know better than they do?
Furthermore, on the first point, the problem is that when organizations are donating everything to these communities, food, medicine, nets, clothing, etc. they have no opportunities to grow their own industries. What is so wrong about asking the AMF to get nets that are made in the country that they will help? Why must we get nets shipped in and employ foreigners, at the expense of jobs in developing countries? Because if we actually built up an industry in the country, everyone at AMF would be out of a job. So long as they keep the country dependent on their mosquito nets, they will stay in business.
As for the second claim, here’s some further context: for searchers and planners, the problem is, the difference between need (what some outside group decides people are in need of) and demand (what people actually want). AMF goes into areas that need nets, they don’t go into areas that want nets. They go into areas that want jobs, electricity, or clean water. They don’t sit down with the community and say, what do you need the most? A new market? Okay we will get that for you. They sit down with a community and say, you need bed nets, we are going to give you bed nets. If you say that you don’t need them, we will go to the next village and give them bed nets instead. I have seen it. They do assessments of how many people get malaria in an area, not what people want if given the choice. To understand, think back to the comparison to the flu. Have you gotten a flu shot every single year? Why not? Maybe because you think that other things are more important. These communities do too. Governments and organizations may request funding and nets, but I have spoken to many communities up and down this country, and never have they said that the thing that they need is bed nets, or malaria reduction. This is top down because AMF is not talking to the actual recipients of the aid, they are talking to intermediary organizations or governments, who ignore the needs of the people, just as much as AMF.
Finally, here’s a quote from Give Directly “This year we plan to provide entire communities of people with a basic income: regular cash payments that are enough for them to live on, for more than 10 years.” They do not just give one time cash payments.
If you want to understand where I am coming from more, I would suggest spending time living in one of these communities served by these organizations. Maybe you will have a different experience to mine. But where I am, these organizations do more harm than good.
Are you against buying goods from other countries when it’s cheaper to get them from there, rather than manufacturing them domestically?
If you aren’t, you also shouldn’t be against a country receiving free bed nets. Receiving free goods from another country is just an extreme instance of goods being cheaper to buy from overseas (in this case for $0), which benefits the recipient country.
If we could get free clothes, free cars, free food, and so on from overseas, that would be awesome. People and capital are freed up to produce other good/services domestically rather than the ones which are now available at no cost.
AMF usually buys the nets from overseas because it’s cheaper to get them from there—where enormous factories have economies of scale to produce them cheaply. That’s where the locals should get them from as well if they want to buy them on the open market for personal use.
“never have they said that the thing that they need is bed nets, or malaria reduction”
In thats the case they can just not accept the nets, no harm done.
I am against it when unemployment is so staggering in a country that young people leave en mass because they have no future. I am against it when there is literally no industry in a country and a single factory could make a world of difference. I am against it when the people in the country do not have a choice in the matter, when they cannot say, oh I would rather buy a bed net to support my local business here than to buy one from a foreign company, and instead they are forced to take bed nets for free, destroying any possibility of fair competition.
As for the claim that if we could get free things from abroad, it would be great, have you ever lived somewhere were you get everything for free from aboard? I do. Over 95% of my country’s budget is straight aid. Everything is subsidized or donated. And it is horrible, no one has a job, (if you get free clothes, anyone that works at a clothing store is out of work, if you get free food anyone that works on a farm, or at a restaurant is out of work) so there is no capital lying around for you to do something with. We can’t produce anything here, because no one wants to invest in a developing country, they would rather help by donating their money to keep these harmful charities alive.
If AMF spent a little more money and helped to create factories in the countries that they worked, they would actually help the local economies, prevent brain drain, and allow people to help themselves, the problem is that then, everyone at AMF and the foreign factory would be out of a job, since the people in the country could handle it themselves. It is better for them to perpetuate the problem and increase dependence since that will keep them in business. Spending a little more could make a world of difference. And this is exactly the problem with only assessing charities on certain factors while ignoring others.
How can locals get something from abroad? Most retail companies do not ship here, and even if they did it would be drastically out of anyone’s price range. But not if they were made locally.
As for no one requesting bed nets, imagine that you go door to door in a town that makes matchsticks giving out free matchsticks for life. Imagine also that this town is sufficiently poor that if they can get something for free they don’t have a choice. If you asked them, they would say they needed more jobs, but you did not ask them what they wanted. You give out matchsticks and eventually the factory, the only source of income for many families here, shuts down. You did harm. People here can’t afford to refuse something that is given for free, and it hurts them in the long run. Why would it be so hard to use your money to give the community what they actually wanted? What gives you the right from afar to decide what a place you have never seen or visited needs? Why do you think that you know more about their lives than they do? Every day I see the harm that these organizations do, but since the recipients have no voice in these forums, the donors keep on doing their worst and patting themselves on the back for it.