So, at first this might seem like it was prompted by that whole Kony2012 thing. And while there are definitely tie-ins, I actually was inspired to start this thread after being FB invited to a "Shoeless" event at my school. The event itself is pretty stupid, and is just meant to raise awareness about the TOMS shoes program. Basically, for every shoe you buy, a shoe is donated to some child in need.
However, while this might seems like a nice idea, it has some substantial flaws. (The link explains better than I could- just click it.)
So, to have a more directed conversation, I propose the following questions:
1: The title question (And say why, obviously)
2: Since I'm assuming most people will say "no", can the TOMS shoes model be altered so that it IS effective, both in the short and long term (it doesn't necessarily have to involve shoes)?
2b: If it can't be altered, is there some other model that would work better?
3: Assuming that charity is effective*, is it something that people should really be doing on an international level? Are we helping, or just interfering? *By effective, I mean accomplishes its direct short term goals. Not solve every problem in the country.
Not usually. The places that need aid the most, like people in totalitarian nations of Africa, don't get much. Their governments want to keep their complete control. Many simply block aid or take control of it for themselves, destroying what they don't use.
can the TOMS shoes model be altered so that it IS effective
Doubt it. Reason below:
Assuming that charity is effective*,
When it works, it can cause infighting over the stuff due to the high demand because there's usually not enough to go around. Even when there is, people get greedy.
1. It is very hard to say if charity works or not, because there are cases, as you mentioned, were the "help (may it be; money, food, pharmaceutical good, and so on)" is being bypassed from the needy to the officials pockets. but on the other hand we can't assume that it is always the case and therefore not help at all.
2. In short term i think that charity is helping (when not stolen). But the long term is the actual problem. As it has been in developed world, people rose up against powers in place because it didn't care about its people and abused them. Charity isn't able to deliver a solution to that.
3. Yes it's helping today but what about tomorrow when the orgs. and countries helping, don't or can't help any more.
When it works, it can cause infighting over the stuff due to the high demand because there's usually not enough to go around. Even when there is, people get greedy.
Can't the same be said for non-charitable goods? I mean, look at department stores in the holiday season.
Yes it's helping today but what about tomorrow when the orgs. and countries helping, don't or can't help any more.
Yes, this is the obvious problems with most charities. It is especially a problem with the TOMS shoes model, because the charity does not create any infrastructure through which people can continue to get shoes after the donations cease.
In fact, one could argue that it actually destroys such infrastructure, by out competing local shoe sellers. After the donations cease, there might actually be less available products than before the charity began!
It is very difficult to come up with a charity model that is more or less incorruptible. Does anybody know of any models that are actually successful?
Does anybody know of any models that are actually successful?
What about a model where they help give the people an education and enough medical aid so that they can begin functioning on their own? Or at least have a better chance at doing so.
What about a model where they help give the people an education and enough medical aid so that they can begin functioning on their own?
In nations that are open to it, that sort of help works most of the time. The problem comes back to the worse places whose governments refuse it.
Can't the same be said for non-charitable goods? I mean, look at department stores in the holiday season.
There's a lot more desperation when people need the stuff to simply survive, such as food donations, and they know they'll literally die if they don't get anything. Most people won't kill each other over the newest iPhone because it's not a true necessity at the moment. They'd be disappointed if they don't get one right away, but they know they'll get one eventually because the supply will continue. A charity may be a one-time thing.
