A thought provoking discussion came up in class on Tuesday about what is more worthwhile: local philanthropy or international philanthropy?
If we are talking about giving our time, it seems obvious that it is easier and sometimes more worthwhile to give our time locally. We are so close, we can see the direct impact, and we don't need to spend money on airfare or accommodations like we would need to in order to give our time in a developing country. However, if we are talking about giving our money, the debate between local and international non-profit organizations is prominent and requires some thought.
After winning the tweet of the week and thinking about how to give the money away, it became clear to me that deciding whether to give locally or internationally was going to be a struggle and a tough decision. After researching many charities, I have come to the conclusion, as of now, to give to an international non-profit and here's why:
It seems that all the local charities are good causes. There's Action for Older Persons, Southern Tier Alternative Therapies, Crime Victims Assistance Center, and so on. All these non-profit organizations are worthwhile to give to and help people in need but they seem relatively insignificant when they are competing for our money against non-profits that are working to save lives and cure diseases in developing countries. If you agree with the proposition that all lives are equal, which I do, it is hard to deny the injustice of giving to a local charity for alternative therapies rather than to non-profit organizations that literally save lives.
Although, when giving to local charities it is much easier to see where your money goes and to make sure it is directly helping people, it is also decently easy to see where your money goes with transparent international non-profits. For example: International Crisis Aid gives to aid relief. 90.7% of your contribution would go directly to the programs and services that it delivers. Only 9.3% would go to administrative expenses and fundraising. With International Crisis Aid, you know where your money is going and that you are making a big impact on the lives of others.
So, if our highest priority when giving money is to save human lives and reduce as much suffering as possible, isn't giving to international non-profits that do just that the logical choice? Singer and many other philosophers claim that not giving to saving human lives is like watching a child die before your very eyes. And, while I would not go to that extreme, my question is that isn't saving human lives and curing disease/preventing disease much more important than Action for Older Persons?
What are your opinions on local versus international philanthropy? Which is more beneficial/worthwhile? Is my view on the issue too black and white and where is the grey area?
- Charlie Scheftic
While perusing twitter this week, I came across a quote that more or less sums up my view on this topic.
ReplyDelete"Do your little bit of good where you are. It's those little bits of good put together that overwhelm the world." -Desmond Tutu.
It's hard to look past the logical arguments presented for giving internationally. As you pointed out, there is the most basic premise that all lives are created equally. Then, you have Singer's book that laid out all sorts of well-researched facts and figures regarding the amount of lives that can be saved for a rather small amount of money and that, too, is hard to deny. However, for me, philanthropy is more emotion than logic, and that draws me towards local giving.
Nothing tugs at my heart strings quite so much as seeing people in my own community struggle. Yes, there are children and families going without basic needs in many poor countries. Often overlooked, however, are the children and families going without these same basic needs in our own towns. There may be very different reasons as to why these needs are un-met, however, this does not change the fact that basic necessities are still not being provided.
I feel that people are often drawn to philanthropy, in any form, due to a personal experience that impacted them. This is certainly the case for me. Working at a local non-profit agency for the past 5 years has exposed me to the needs of children and families in this area. One particular experience, that I shared in class, really hit me hard. One of my former student's came to class on a Monday morning and asked for a second serving at breakfast. This sweet, seven year old boy then informed me that he and his five siblings each had one bowl of cereal for breakfast on Saturday morning, and that was it. Until that moment, I had always felt that going without food was something that impacted people in third world countries, not people that live in my hometown. Since that moment, I have changed jobs and now work closely with people with a variety of mental health issues in the community, who rely on the services provided by local non-profit agencies to live happy, safe, and fulfilling lives. While these local non-profit agencies are not necessarily saving lives with their services, it is easy to see that they make a difference in the quality of life for those that utilize them.
With all of that said, part of the beauty of philanthropy is that it is such a deeply personal journey, and each person can go about giving in a way that they feel passionate about.Congratulations on your win for Tweet of the Week!
Courtney, I know exactly what you mean. Last semester, I worked in the referral office of CHOW, Community Hunger Outreach Warehouse, where I made appointments for the people of Broome County into various food pantries and church soup kitchens. And let me tell you something, nothing is more heartbreaking than answering the phone and hearing someone tell you she's hungry and needs food. And what was weird about the whole situation is that I would give these people directions and the churches would be near my friends' off campus houses or right behind a frat house I was at the past weekend. It's crazy to know that Things like this happens right in our backyards, and most of the time we don't even see it unless it happens in front of our faces.
DeleteThere is so much wrong and so much struggle, here, in America, that just flies under the radar. The food insecurity of Broome County and Binghamton specifically, is shocking. And what I've seen, as you've pointed out, it takes a personal experience to see these things.
This past summer I was fortunate to travel to both Europe and Haiti. And although I felt bad for the homeless people begging for change in the tourist-packed subways, there was nothing like seeing the thousands of starving people surrounding you in Haiti. And this debate really comes into play here. Is starving in Europe hurt any less than starving in a third world country? Or, is it that the less readily available aid in Haiti draws more attention than the beggars of the streets in Europe? It's sort of paradoxical; that with such a wealthy country as America, there is still poverty, but we choose to send aid over seas.
In Singer's book, he offers a quote from warren Buffet exclaiming, "If you stick me down in the middle of Bangladesh or Peru or someplace, you find out how much this talent is going to produce in the wrong kind of soil." And I found this to be very interesting. I am a firm believer that we are all a product of our society; so does poverty in the US or Europe even compare to poverty in India or Honduras? With globalization and a growing network between nations, shouldn't we level the playing fields, in terms of basic standard of living, before continuing on with business?
As I've grown up and persist through my journey if life, I have opened my eyes to a lot of the inequalities of various groups of people, in and out of the US. So to me, being from the land of opportunity, helping international causes is only fair.
-Chelsea Desruisseaux
I agree with Courtney on the statement that philanthropy usually involves personal experiences that impacted them, but that does not necessarily mean that the experience is solely based locally. When I was in high school I was able to take a trip to Nicaragua to do community service there. We stayed there for 9 days building houses, teaching in schools, giving out clothing donations. We slept outside in cots and couldn't drink the same water as the local people. This experience gave me a connection with these people. While yes some people in America are poor, I don't believe it is on the same level. I'm not saying we shouldn't help them too but sometimes you need to help the worst case scenario first.
ReplyDeleteI found this article comparing the rich and poor in America to that of other countries and I think it is worth looking at. It says that' "In fact, America's bottom ventile is still richer than most of the world: That is, the typical person in the bottom 5 percent of the American income distribution is still richer than 68 percent of the world's inhabitants." So when debating whether to donate locally or internationally I think you need to take into account how poor or how much in need people actually are not just relative to where they live but in proportion to all the people in the world. Just because someone lives in the same country or town that we do does that make their life more important than others?
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/the-haves-and-the-have-nots/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
I believe that people are more apt to give to international charities because they are more well-known. For instance, I have never seen a local charity advertise themselves on television in my hometown, but I always see chilling pictures of children starving in Africa. Since these international charities are well-known, people are more likely to give to them.
ReplyDeleteI believe that people often overlook local charities, or don't even know about them to begin with. I know I don't know any local charities in my neighborhood on Long Island.
With that said, international charities have much more money to be able to advertise and get their name out there. However, I don't believe that one is better to donate your money to. I agree with Charlie when he said that all lives are equal, so it is extremely difficult to choose where to send your money.
If I had to choose, I would probably do research and look up local charities that I could donate my time and money to, just because it hits close to home. If I was made more aware of the poverty and injustices going on around me, I think I would donate and volunteer there.
After reading these posts one thing really struck me: the idea of local. It seems that people donation their time and money based on their experience and emotional connection to a cause. In most cases the argument to donate to a "local" charity is the connection with a person that is suffering at a much more extensive level than the surrounding community. I would argue in line with much of what has been said, that the choice is subjective. Subjective based on the donator's experiences and emotional connection to a cause.
ReplyDeleteThe main point of my argument is that when thinking about the real importance of our charitable donations we must put ourselves in areas that are most in need of charitable work/funds. So I would argue, although this is theoretical and difficult to do, that everyone would donate internationally if they experienced life in a developing country. In other words "local" charities for you were in developing country. This relies on a person's experience and subsequent emotional response to the dismal human condition, compared to the U.S., in international communities who cannot establish their own charities.