This motivation [...] to be selfless [...] is THE cause of the problem.
I don’t see how. I’ll assume, at least for the sake of argument, that your account of how these things work out is accurate; how would it go any better if the volunteers had different, less selfless, motivation? And why blame the situation on the volunteers’ selflessness rather than on any of the other elements in the situation—the locals’ preference for cheaper but worse medical care, the offers for the physicians to emigrate, the fact that the local physicians are dependent on money from the locals rather than being paid by the government as in some Western countries, the fact that the volunteers eventually go away?
Actually, I’m a bit confused by the description of the process. So, the problem is that the volunteers turn up, provide cheap medical care thus putting the local physician out of business, and then go away. If the volunteers stayed around, the locals would have cheap medical care all the time and presumably that’s a good outcome. Now, why does the local physician emigrate to the West rather than just moving down the road to another village that doesn’t have western volunteers? Is it because there’s more money to be made by emigrating? (In that case, surely the temptation is there even without the western volunteers.) Is it because the village down the road also has volunteers undercutting the physician? (If that’s commonly the case, then a large fraction of the country must be getting free medical care from these volunteers—so are you sure they aren’t doing more good than harm overall?) Is it because the village down the road has its own physician? (If that’s commonly the case, then the country isn’t so desperately short of physicians as you describe.) I dunno—I’m just having trouble seeing how your account fits together. Is it actually well founded on evidence?
The only way to be a true altruist is to be anonymous.
Would those African rural outposts have been better off if their first-aid volunteers had all been wearing masks and keeping their identities secret?
If the volunteers stayed around, the locals would have cheap medical care all the time and presumably that’s a good outcome.
No, that’s a terrible outcome. Long-term solutions to persistent, difficult problems come about when capable people with skin in the game take action. Malawian doctors have skin in the African game but are sidelined when Milwaukeean dairy farmers fill in for free.
Further, when we look closer to home we understand that there are many problems for which the best possible solution is to do nothing. That misfit brother who has to learn to stand on his own two feet would be much better off if mom and dad would let him fail a few times. We understand the nuance of the situation because we are part of the culture and part of the family. The further we are removed from the person needing help the harder it becomes to understand that nuance.
Eric Sevareid’s had a wonderful saying, “The chief cause of problems is solutions.”
How very convenient that the best thing for millions of desperately poor people is for comfortable Westerners like us to do nothing to help them.
(It may well be true in some cases, but I do find it striking how very little evidence seems to be needed to convince some people that the best charity is no charity.)
How very convenient that the best thing for millions of desperately poor people is for comfortable Westerners like us to do nothing to help them.
To the contrary, it is very inconvenient.
We naturally want to help. I want to help. More than you could ever know. After being on the ground in Africa for a while I just realized that:
Most of the things I could do are more harmful than allowing those desperately poor people to solve their problems themselves.
There is an upward spiral of confidence, strength and capability when someone solves their own problems and a downward spiral of dependence when problems are solved for them.
It is nearly impossible for my comfortable Westerner eyes to distinguish between those problems I can solve without doing harm and those where I would wreak havoc.
My comfortable Western mind is biased toward action. Action makes me feel good. Refraining from action makes me feel bad. This action-bias causes me to do great harm.
My presence enables and permits dysfunction in the one organization that could solve these problems: government.
For those trying to solve persistent problems closer to home, look at those points and see how many apply to your pet project.
OK; in that case it sounds as if I have misjudged your motivations (and perhaps also how broadly you are claiming that the best charity is no charity; that’s still not altogether clear to me). It is possible that your choice of username influenced me in the direction of thinking you more likely to be advocating something like egoism :-).
How do you feel about charitable activity that only supplies its beneficiaries with useful resources? For instance, two of GiveWell’s current recommendations are:
A charity that provides people in poor malaria-afflicted parts of the world with bednets impregnated with insecticide.
A charity that simply gives money to poor people. (In one-off donations, which are explicitly intended to enable them to do things they otherwise couldn’t—though there are no strings attached.)
These seem to me like they don’t get in the way of anything the beneficiaries could have done for themselves, and the available evidence seems to suggest that in fact they do substantially more good than harm.
Even what may appear as a benign intervention on the surface can have damning consequences. Say there is a mosquito-net maker in small-town Africa. Say he employs 10 people who together manufacture 500 nets a week. Typically, these 10 employees support upward of 15 relatives each. A Western government-inspired program generously supplies the affected region with 100,000 free mosquito nets. This promptly puts the mosquito net manufacturer out of business, and now his 10 employees can no longer support their 150 dependents. In a couple of years, most of the donated nets will be torn and useless, but now there is no mosquito net maker to go to. They’ll have to get more aid. And African governments once again get to abdicate their responsibilities.
Privileging a hypothesis, lump of labor fallacy / ignoring comparative advantage, cherrypicking consequences, and not thinking on the margin, to boot.
Say there is a mosquito-net maker in small-town Africa.
That’s the first stage at which I am most doubtful about Moyo’s argument. Sure, one can postulate situations in which sending a lot of mosquito nets to Africa does a lot of damage by putting a lot of local mosquito-net makers out of business. But is that actually happening? (Or, failing that, is there good reason to think it would be happening if it weren’t for charitable mosquito-net provision?)
The other point at which I am doubtful: let’s suppose that supplying mosquito nets puts N people out of work per year. That’s bad (unless N=0). But it also stops M people getting malaria per year. How do those effects balance out? Does Moyo make any attempt at such a calculation, or is she doing a cost-benefit analysis that completely ignores the benefits?
Sure, one can postulate situations in which sending a lot of mosquito nets to Africa does a lot of damage by putting a lot of local mosquito-net makers out of business. But is that actually happening?
Pick an industry that is thriving in, say, South Africa and compare it to the same industry in a high-aid country like Uganda. Inevitably you will find that the more sector-aid they receive, the worse their industries produce. It is hard to out-compete free. I gave the Malawi-medical example below but they are everywhere.
I was there this time last year and saw that the rhino horn crisis was actually being encouraged by officials who had positioned family and friends as the ready solution for the deep pockets aid organizations to buy.
Chances are, if you live in a U.S. city you will walk past a homeless person today. You can continue walking without dropping a coin in their cup because you have empathy (you understand the complexities of his/her plight) and realize that by giving the quarter you will do more harm than good. But we want to be good so we pick people far away with whom we cannot empathize (in the truest sense of the word.… able to walk in their shoes) and then send them money.
This idea is objectionable to your mind (and mine) because we desperately want to help people. So we become good at ignoring the fact that our help actually hurts.
compare it to the same industry in a high-aid country like Uganda
How do you distinguish between the following two hypotheses?
Country A receives more aid than Country B, and this makes its industry do worse.
Country A is more badly messed up than Country B, and this makes its industry do worse and also makes people send it more aid.
Who could be against helping [orphans]?
I think you are arguing with a straw man. Of course there will be cases where something looks like a good idea but is actually a terrible idea. The question that actually matters is about what’s best overall.
So we become good at ignoring the fact that our help actually hurts.
Well, that’s one possibility. Another possibility is that “the fact that our help actually hurts” is not readily apparent, and wouldn’t be even if we didn’t care about helping people. Another is that it isn’t actually a fact.
For what it’s worth, both of those seem more likely to me right now than your proposal that if someone doesn’t agree that aid’s harmful it’s because they “want to be good” and “cannot empathize” with the people on the receiving end.
Google Moyo and watch a few of her interviews.
“Beware the man of one study”. Yes, Moyo argues that aid is harmful. It’s not as if everyone familiar with the area agrees with her, though. Why should I accept what she says rather than what, say, Jeffrey Sachs says?
Why should I accept what she says rather than what, say, Jeffrey Sachs says
You should not uncritically accept anything. But you should recognize that there is a point of view (not limited to Moyo) which claims that many (or most) forms of aid have net negative consequences. Many people would be surprised to learn that this point of view exists.
It’s also worth pointing out that the usual bias mechanisms will push you towards believing that aid really helps.
you should recognize that there is a point of view [...]
So recognized. (And, as it happens, already known.)
the usual bias mechanisms will push you towards believing that aid really helps
Some will. Some will push the other way. (I don’t know about you, but I like having money, and anything that has the consequence that the best thing for the world happens to involve me having more money is going to get at least a bit of a boost from that. I don’t think I’m unusual in this respect.)
Why should I accept what she says rather than what, say, Jeffrey Sachs says?
In the end she is giving her opinion. I am giving mine. I am telling you what I saw and how I came to my conclusions. You can do with them as you choose.
The thing I find deeply troubling is that I know good people would not do what they are doing if they knew the consequences. They would not toss the quarter into the cup of the homeless guy.
It is very common for those outsiders who work on the front lines of aid/charity to talk (to rage!!!) about the fubar consequences while they are there together in the muck. But the moment they come home they sing a different tune. It is very frustrating to see that when they are back home and faced with their own deep investment in it, they forget the lessons. Very frustrating.
Would those African rural outposts have been better off if their first-aid volunteers had all been wearing masks and keeping their identities secret?
They would have to believe that they could obscure their actions from their all-seeing, all-knowing god since their motivations were driven by the belief that they were gaining status toward a day of ultimate reckoning.
Those outposts would have been better had the amateurs stayed home.
I don’t see how. I’ll assume, at least for the sake of argument, that your account of how these things work out is accurate; how would it go any better if the volunteers had different, less selfless, motivation? And why blame the situation on the volunteers’ selflessness rather than on any of the other elements in the situation—the locals’ preference for cheaper but worse medical care, the offers for the physicians to emigrate, the fact that the local physicians are dependent on money from the locals rather than being paid by the government as in some Western countries, the fact that the volunteers eventually go away?
Actually, I’m a bit confused by the description of the process. So, the problem is that the volunteers turn up, provide cheap medical care thus putting the local physician out of business, and then go away. If the volunteers stayed around, the locals would have cheap medical care all the time and presumably that’s a good outcome. Now, why does the local physician emigrate to the West rather than just moving down the road to another village that doesn’t have western volunteers? Is it because there’s more money to be made by emigrating? (In that case, surely the temptation is there even without the western volunteers.) Is it because the village down the road also has volunteers undercutting the physician? (If that’s commonly the case, then a large fraction of the country must be getting free medical care from these volunteers—so are you sure they aren’t doing more good than harm overall?) Is it because the village down the road has its own physician? (If that’s commonly the case, then the country isn’t so desperately short of physicians as you describe.) I dunno—I’m just having trouble seeing how your account fits together. Is it actually well founded on evidence?
Would those African rural outposts have been better off if their first-aid volunteers had all been wearing masks and keeping their identities secret?
No, that’s a terrible outcome. Long-term solutions to persistent, difficult problems come about when capable people with skin in the game take action. Malawian doctors have skin in the African game but are sidelined when Milwaukeean dairy farmers fill in for free.
Further, when we look closer to home we understand that there are many problems for which the best possible solution is to do nothing. That misfit brother who has to learn to stand on his own two feet would be much better off if mom and dad would let him fail a few times. We understand the nuance of the situation because we are part of the culture and part of the family. The further we are removed from the person needing help the harder it becomes to understand that nuance.
Eric Sevareid’s had a wonderful saying, “The chief cause of problems is solutions.”
How very convenient that the best thing for millions of desperately poor people is for comfortable Westerners like us to do nothing to help them.
(It may well be true in some cases, but I do find it striking how very little evidence seems to be needed to convince some people that the best charity is no charity.)
To the contrary, it is very inconvenient.
We naturally want to help. I want to help. More than you could ever know. After being on the ground in Africa for a while I just realized that:
Most of the things I could do are more harmful than allowing those desperately poor people to solve their problems themselves.
There is an upward spiral of confidence, strength and capability when someone solves their own problems and a downward spiral of dependence when problems are solved for them.
It is nearly impossible for my comfortable Westerner eyes to distinguish between those problems I can solve without doing harm and those where I would wreak havoc.
My comfortable Western mind is biased toward action. Action makes me feel good. Refraining from action makes me feel bad. This action-bias causes me to do great harm.
My presence enables and permits dysfunction in the one organization that could solve these problems: government.
For those trying to solve persistent problems closer to home, look at those points and see how many apply to your pet project.
OK; in that case it sounds as if I have misjudged your motivations (and perhaps also how broadly you are claiming that the best charity is no charity; that’s still not altogether clear to me). It is possible that your choice of username influenced me in the direction of thinking you more likely to be advocating something like egoism :-).
How do you feel about charitable activity that only supplies its beneficiaries with useful resources? For instance, two of GiveWell’s current recommendations are:
A charity that provides people in poor malaria-afflicted parts of the world with bednets impregnated with insecticide.
A charity that simply gives money to poor people. (In one-off donations, which are explicitly intended to enable them to do things they otherwise couldn’t—though there are no strings attached.)
These seem to me like they don’t get in the way of anything the beneficiaries could have done for themselves, and the available evidence seems to suggest that in fact they do substantially more good than harm.
Dambisa Moyo specifically addresses the bednet issue in her excellent book Dead Aid.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123758895999200083
Even what may appear as a benign intervention on the surface can have damning consequences. Say there is a mosquito-net maker in small-town Africa. Say he employs 10 people who together manufacture 500 nets a week. Typically, these 10 employees support upward of 15 relatives each. A Western government-inspired program generously supplies the affected region with 100,000 free mosquito nets. This promptly puts the mosquito net manufacturer out of business, and now his 10 employees can no longer support their 150 dependents. In a couple of years, most of the donated nets will be torn and useless, but now there is no mosquito net maker to go to. They’ll have to get more aid. And African governments once again get to abdicate their responsibilities.
Privileging a hypothesis, lump of labor fallacy / ignoring comparative advantage, cherrypicking consequences, and not thinking on the margin, to boot.
That’s the first stage at which I am most doubtful about Moyo’s argument. Sure, one can postulate situations in which sending a lot of mosquito nets to Africa does a lot of damage by putting a lot of local mosquito-net makers out of business. But is that actually happening? (Or, failing that, is there good reason to think it would be happening if it weren’t for charitable mosquito-net provision?)
The other point at which I am doubtful: let’s suppose that supplying mosquito nets puts N people out of work per year. That’s bad (unless N=0). But it also stops M people getting malaria per year. How do those effects balance out? Does Moyo make any attempt at such a calculation, or is she doing a cost-benefit analysis that completely ignores the benefits?
Pick an industry that is thriving in, say, South Africa and compare it to the same industry in a high-aid country like Uganda. Inevitably you will find that the more sector-aid they receive, the worse their industries produce. It is hard to out-compete free. I gave the Malawi-medical example below but they are everywhere.
I was there this time last year and saw that the rhino horn crisis was actually being encouraged by officials who had positioned family and friends as the ready solution for the deep pockets aid organizations to buy.
How about orphans. Who could be against helping them? There are the countless orphan scandals across Africa and South Asia where parents rent or sell their children to the orphanage. https://www.zammagazine.com/chronicle/chronicle-12/217-child-abuse-in-the-name-of-voluntourism
Chances are, if you live in a U.S. city you will walk past a homeless person today. You can continue walking without dropping a coin in their cup because you have empathy (you understand the complexities of his/her plight) and realize that by giving the quarter you will do more harm than good. But we want to be good so we pick people far away with whom we cannot empathize (in the truest sense of the word.… able to walk in their shoes) and then send them money.
This idea is objectionable to your mind (and mine) because we desperately want to help people. So we become good at ignoring the fact that our help actually hurts.
Google Moyo and watch a few of her interviews.
How do you distinguish between the following two hypotheses?
Country A receives more aid than Country B, and this makes its industry do worse.
Country A is more badly messed up than Country B, and this makes its industry do worse and also makes people send it more aid.
I think you are arguing with a straw man. Of course there will be cases where something looks like a good idea but is actually a terrible idea. The question that actually matters is about what’s best overall.
Well, that’s one possibility. Another possibility is that “the fact that our help actually hurts” is not readily apparent, and wouldn’t be even if we didn’t care about helping people. Another is that it isn’t actually a fact.
For what it’s worth, both of those seem more likely to me right now than your proposal that if someone doesn’t agree that aid’s harmful it’s because they “want to be good” and “cannot empathize” with the people on the receiving end.
“Beware the man of one study”. Yes, Moyo argues that aid is harmful. It’s not as if everyone familiar with the area agrees with her, though. Why should I accept what she says rather than what, say, Jeffrey Sachs says?
You should not uncritically accept anything. But you should recognize that there is a point of view (not limited to Moyo) which claims that many (or most) forms of aid have net negative consequences. Many people would be surprised to learn that this point of view exists.
It’s also worth pointing out that the usual bias mechanisms will push you towards believing that aid really helps.
So recognized. (And, as it happens, already known.)
Some will. Some will push the other way. (I don’t know about you, but I like having money, and anything that has the consequence that the best thing for the world happens to involve me having more money is going to get at least a bit of a boost from that. I don’t think I’m unusual in this respect.)
In the end she is giving her opinion. I am giving mine. I am telling you what I saw and how I came to my conclusions. You can do with them as you choose.
The thing I find deeply troubling is that I know good people would not do what they are doing if they knew the consequences. They would not toss the quarter into the cup of the homeless guy.
It is very common for those outsiders who work on the front lines of aid/charity to talk (to rage!!!) about the fubar consequences while they are there together in the muck. But the moment they come home they sing a different tune. It is very frustrating to see that when they are back home and faced with their own deep investment in it, they forget the lessons. Very frustrating.
They would have to believe that they could obscure their actions from their all-seeing, all-knowing god since their motivations were driven by the belief that they were gaining status toward a day of ultimate reckoning.
Those outposts would have been better had the amateurs stayed home.