"No more charity, please!"

Moniek Zegers says we shouldn't be giving more but taking less.

Marco Visscher | December 2007 issue

Charity is in. Bill Clinton has written a bestseller about it and rock stars are organizing concerts. But Moniek Zegers, co-founder of the recently launched Dutch Comité tegen Goede Doelen Gekte ("Committee against good-cause lunacy") says we shouldn’t be giving more but taking less.

What’s wrong with charity?
Moniek Zegers: "Western idealists often know far too little about the local culture of the region they want to help. They usually live with other expats and the local elite in an upscale part of the city, while the biggest problems are concentrated in remote villages. Moreover, good causes keep themselves afloat. If their governing strategies were effective, everyone involved would be out of a job. But this keeps fundamental problems from being solved."

Fundamental problems?
"Charity is part of a sick system that is barely even up for discussion. Corporations exploit farmers and labourers in developing countries and political leaders pretend development aid ends up with the people who need it, while donor countries often actually profit from it."

And charity organizations don’t do enough to about this?
"They create the impression that we can all save the poor from ruin if we fly in somewhere and build a school or drill a well. They rarely point out the inconvenient truths."

Such as?
"That even fair-trade coffee is processed in the West while coffee-producing countries should not only supply the raw materials but the end product. Or take the fact that our fish consumption has prompted Western companies to move into African coastal areas, taking jobs away from local fishermen—who are going hungry."

So what does work?
"A different global economy, changes to global politics. And if this sounds too abstract, let’s try to behave like responsible world citizens. You can affect the lives of poor people every day with your wallet or savings or pension fund —which is much more effective than being charitable."

Tools: Discuss | Email | Print | RSS | Weekly Newsletter
Save/Share:

Comments (9)

Brilliant.

Well stated and insightful thoughts by Ms. Zeger. She is absolutely correct about the false "good Samaritan" face that corporations and political leaders put on. This false face provides these unethical and non-integrity existent people the channel to accumulate wealth unproductively, unethically, and unconstructively for their own personal gain by providing a sham of charity to mislead the general public.

My definition of a corporation is "Greed without a moral or social conscience". The entire system is flawed. How to change it for the better? The middle class is the social conscience of society. They are the only ones to change infrastructure of what how the political and corporate leaders behave. Why middle class? Because they haven't crossed that bridge of wealth that usually is achieved by ill-gotten gains because of either too much integrity, too stressed from daily life, or just plain ignorant. However, in the US of A, the majority of leaders I believe are unethical and the middle class majority is so ignorant (For example, there are still plenty of Bush fans.. for god’s sake!) that their won’t be a change until society has a major meltdown due to either environmental causes, truth about Iraq war is finally told by media, or by their pocket book being hit by oil prices, etc. This sounds bleek but I believe this from living in the States and seeing how the average American lives their daily lives which are controlled by various manipulating media channels of the news.

posted by Karen_Canyon on 1/ 2/2008 8:38 am

I agree that simple charity - giving money to an organization who goes in and does acts of support for people in communities of need - isn't the answer. But to blanket characterize all charitable organizations as ineffective and needing to be eliminated, is to miss where they are actually making a difference, empowering the people they help, in a culturally appropriate way, leaving the people in the area better off then they were before, and able to maintain and grow what's been started, after the organization is no longer there. A great example of this is Sustainable Harvest. They go to areas, working with local people to determine what would best meet their needs, and have locals be a part in implementing the decided on programs. Their activities help create more sustainable agriculture, that does three things : positively effects the global environment by reducing earth damaging practices. Supports people in having ongoing livelihoods. Helps them grow food to support their own needs. www.sustainableharvest.org

This is but one example of where charities are serving people in a positive, useful manner. Keep your eyes (and mind) open!

posted by PaulSmith on 12/26/2007 11:38 am

"NO more charity" is perhaps a bit exagerated, but looking for and developing alternatives that are more sustainable and provide more equal interactions between "givers" and "receivers" is definately necessary acording to me.

For me there are two main problems with charity:

1) Lack of sustainability. After the charity dollar is spent a new charity dollar will have to be looked for to keep the initiatvie going. This is not a way to really solve problems. Also it happens all to often that the receivers get used to getting charity and are in fact encouraged to not sustainably improving their situation.

2) Unequal relation between giver and receiver. The giver will always be the generous and good hearted giver and the receiver will always stay the dependant one who is to be gratefull for the generous donation. A very unequal relation which is in no way good for the self esteam of the receiver and should therefor be discouraged.

There are alternatives which are sustainable and create equal relationships. Fair trade is a good example where consumers (in the west) buy a product they simply need for a fair price from a producer (in the south). The producer can be proud that someone wants to buy there product. Not out of pitty, but because it is beautifull or usefull. Also in this way the producer can sustainibly create an income.

In Peru I started a company called FairMail (www.fairmail.info). We give photography training to deprived teenagers and sell the postcards with their beautifull pictures on them. This way the teenagers are earning money to finance their own education (FairMail spends 50% of its profit on the education of the photographer). Not by holding out their hand on the sidewalk, but by working for a better future. And you bet that they are proud that people in the west are buying their postcards!

Help by buying a stylish and original Fair Trade Photocard in FairMail's webshop on www.fairmail.info.

Peter den Hond Peter@fairmail.info

posted by FairMailPeter on 12/26/2007 9:58 am

I have to agree that there shouldn't be any more charity because although we are giving a LOT of money to these poor countries like Uganda, Kenya etc., it doesn't help very much. I agree with Trish that as far as building schools and drilling wells, it is actually not very harmless but as far as giving money etc. and improving lives for them we should actually stop to think about improving our own lives as far as issues like global warming.

Likewise, it is not very bad to help those less fortunate than ourselves, however, we should also stop to think about improving our own lives. Issues like global warming are more important than charity: we've given away too much and it hasn't helped establish any difference - maybe the fact that Oprah Winfrey is building an all-girls academy is fine and no harm is done, besides, she's only spending her own money.

posted by farfalle on 12/26/2007 2:07 am

Bravo! This is a wonderful insight and an excellent discussion thread. What we humans appear deeply challenged with is tracking backwards to find where our problems developed. Instead, we tend to look for cultural practices to change that provide a quick "fix" to problems we don't understand.

We have wonderful "systems" approaches to work with, but we somehow fail to factor human nature into the "system." Often, this is because we feel that we are "forced" to work within existing cultural frameworks that incorporate political, religious or economic views of human nature that simply do not work. So, we solve problems by easy patches that forestall action and create deeper, more perplexing problems for future generations to deal with.

Are we ready to look at the deeper issues that increasingly plague the human race as we push up against the limits of our ecosystems? Are we ready to let go of the theologies and ideologies and economies that cripple us?

When gorrilas or other complex creatures are confronted with collapsing habitats, they work harder and harder to survive, probably becoming more creative and resourceful, but also becoming more belligerent and competitive. Humans have created cultures that bring into being "realities" that we imagine and value, but which confine our thinking. We are now seeing our own habitats shrinking, which makes us anxious and belligerent, also less capable of examining the underlying problems.

In effect, we may have infinite abilities to rationalize and create "realities," but at the core, we are but apes with overdeveloped data processors. We create what we imagine, and yet we have not sufficiently understood our limits as a species, and the cultural disciplines and constraints that could allow our species to live sustainably on a bioshpere.

Solutions? There are difficult decisions to make. But without a consensus on the nature of our problems, and on the nature of the human species, I do not believe that we are able to muster the courage or will to make these difficult decisions. We have never been in this place before, even if it is of our own making.

posted by Earon on 12/10/2007 3:30 pm

Some very interesting points have been raised in the comments to this article. But one point from the very first paragraph seems to have been overlooked - the part about 'taking less'....

In the most fundamental sense, this would really mean not doing things like drinking coffee in the 'West', as the land used for growing coffee beans could then be used to grow food crops for people to actually feed themselves. Indeed, this underlying point seems crucial: 'economy' and 'commerce' at the moment mean the making of money, even if this prevents people from having enough food to eat and water to drink. Is there any sense whatsoever in any person growing something to make money to buy food, rather than using the available land to grow food for themselves? And if someone couldn't grow certai types of food, they could trade this with people who can, but who can't grow what the other person has to offer - that's true fair trade! There are very few parts of the world, if any, where nothing is grown or 'farmed', including animals, despite what anyone might feel about this. Even desert nomads have their animal herds, some of which they can exchange for other foods - and perhaps even water where necessary - when they come across others during their travels.

And what about food 'mountains' and 'lakes'? If there is really sufficient in one place, then why in the Universe shouldn't this be shared unconditionally with those in need? Isn't that true charity, i.e. clear perception of another's basic needs not being met when there is more than enough to share? Why always the motive of 'reward/remuneration/profit' in every action undertaken?

Although this comment has been about food more than anything else, it seems absolutely appropriate to deal with this. Hundreds of millions thirst and starve to death while others eat until they become unhealthy, or even eat more 'healthy' food than they need. True charity - caring and sharing in an effortless way - will demand nothing more than a radical transformation in humanity's present way of being. Charity comes with compassion, which is humility and love that are not based on 'self'. However, until that happens, any way of giving in which there is some clear perception of need has to be a start, coupled with the giving being directed through those who understand local needs and ensure that it reaches its intended 'destination'.

posted by adamgilliland on 12/ 9/2007 7:36 pm

It seems to me that either perspective is limiting their view point in some way. The act of living in a Western nation is, in and of it's self, conspicuous consumption. While one can try to buy fair-traded products there are far more products that we use and benefit from, that are not fair-traded. So long as that's the case, then no matter how hard we try to cause less harm to those living in developing nations we will still cause harm. With that in mind then it is not enough to simply cause less harm, it is actually still important to cause good. Charity is one way that people find to do good. How organizations use those funds is a whole other story.

How organizations spend donated money is a big problem for sure, but the act of an individual donating is not where the problem lay. They way in which westerners inflict their values on developing nations through their charity work is a problem. People should be more aware of the organizations that they are giving money to, hold them accountable, become familiar with their daily practices in their ground work.

The fact that Western countries have caused the situation that causes severe poverty is a problem in it's self. There are plenty of things that national governments should and can do to reduce exploitive practices in developing countries. However, this does not effect the value of an individual living in the Western world giving to charity. Unless a person is willing to leave western countries, become ex-pats who do the ground work themselves, then the next best thing is to both buy responsibly and give to charities they believe in.

posted by Nic on 11/28/2007 4:03 pm

I agree with the attitude of the author.

Buying the right products such as fair trade products and investing money in the right projects e.g. by opening an account at the Eco bank Triodos in the Netherlands, puts our money at where it is most needed. We should always bear in mind that consumer power is the strongest power that influences and steers the supply of goods in the world market! The more we conscientiously consume the right products and services the more we can force the market into a positive change towards fair trade.

Western countries tend to exploit poorer, third world country and then donate money to those countries in return to show the world that they care. These are no more then fake social projects, a kind of Marketing strategy to gain more customers. It should be however exactly the opposite. There should be no exploitation and little interference of western countries and poorer countries should be taught how to help themselves.

By paying a fair trade price for all products we consume, we enable producers to stay in business. By paying fair prices also small businesses can stay in the market and will not, as currently the case, be outdriven by major international concerns and big brands such as Coca-Cola and Nestle. So the answer to charity is consumer buying power. Consume honest and fair trade products (e.g. Max Havelaar) and you will help those countries increasing their business strengths ! People are much more proud when having earned the money by themselves instead of getting charity!

Just recently I have set-up a website www.bewust-leven.org; the webpage offers consumers a structured overview of all local companies and organisations with a conscientious attitude that are situated in Maastricht and surroundings. I have started this initiative a couple of months ago, so I am still working on getting more companies on board. But I have made a start and hope that it will help people to make the right choices in their daily lifes!

posted by Antje on 11/28/2007 12:03 pm

I'm unsure what the author is suggesting people do. I realize that outsider-driven development projects rarely work, because outsiders often fail to understand what the recipients want/need. But supporting international projects when funding is solicited by the local recipients...I can't see where the harm is.

Global commerce is vastly different than global charity. The reality is that people will continue to drink coffee. So, as long as they are doing that, isn't fair-trade better than non? Starbucks can't even seem to commit to limiting their raw ingredients to fair-trade beans. At least that would be a start!

And, as far as building schools and drilling wells goes, yes, these are likely bandaids. But are they actually harmful???

I'm not finding constructive advice for how people living in a surplus can benefit those who are in need by socking money away in a retirement fund. If rich people have excess to spare and want to help those less fortunate, what is a good way for them to do that?

posted by trish on 11/27/2007 6:09 pm