So what’s the mechanism by which monetary charity works? Are we “just” exploiting a comparative advantage in dollar-gathering in order to force the people on the ground to behave the way we prefer? Do we have any evidence that it can create channels of behavior that are self-sustaining?
I think most of the answers, including mine, miss this aspect of the problem.
Seems the question is really, what incentives for the recipients of charity are created by the charitable assistance that is akin to teaching them to fish rather than just giving them a fish for the day. I think this is actually a separate issue than how the charitable assistance is produced (monetary donations). However, I also suspect there might be interactions that, when examined, will shed some light.
One thing I would like to put on the table. Do the recipients want to change their behavior? I think it is very easy to say they want to enjoy a better standard of living and avoid hunger and disease but to what extents?
I suspect there is a bit of a disconnect here in the case of charity. I suspect most donors do not think that far along. They do want the good feeling of giving the hungry that fish without thinking about how the recipients might become self sufficient. The incentives for the charity (not the people providing the work, and particularly those on the front line) may not align well with teaching how to fish. That could be the case for both standard bureaucratic (it doesn’t want to die either and changing focus hard—it has its niche) and because that is the higher cost solution, requiring longer time. If donors’ need more more visibly immediate results that type of solution may reduce levels of donation.
I think most of the answers, including mine, miss this aspect of the problem.
Seems the question is really, what incentives for the recipients of charity are created by the charitable assistance that is akin to teaching them to fish rather than just giving them a fish for the day. I think this is actually a separate issue than how the charitable assistance is produced (monetary donations). However, I also suspect there might be interactions that, when examined, will shed some light.
One thing I would like to put on the table. Do the recipients want to change their behavior? I think it is very easy to say they want to enjoy a better standard of living and avoid hunger and disease but to what extents?
I suspect there is a bit of a disconnect here in the case of charity. I suspect most donors do not think that far along. They do want the good feeling of giving the hungry that fish without thinking about how the recipients might become self sufficient. The incentives for the charity (not the people providing the work, and particularly those on the front line) may not align well with teaching how to fish. That could be the case for both standard bureaucratic (it doesn’t want to die either and changing focus hard—it has its niche) and because that is the higher cost solution, requiring longer time. If donors’ need more more visibly immediate results that type of solution may reduce levels of donation.