BigBallinStalin wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:My main concern about the larger charitable organizations, which typically have to establish ties with the foreign government, is that the donations not only bankroll some government officials/thugs directly, but the donations also act as a subsidy for maintaining poor institutions. "Why fix things when foreigner money can ease your citizens' burdens?"
Of course, I'm not sure what the magnitude of that harmful effect is, but it's a major concern which doesn't feel good to encourage.
I think that it is significantly outweighed by the help given to the citizens of those countries. The most significant issue preventing them from altering their own governmental structures is their own poverty -- it's impossible to be politically active when you're spending 18 hours per day doing enough work to make sure there's food on the table and that your roof doesn't fall down. Marginally, then, the money you're giving to the impoverished citizens (who have very little money) has a much greater effect than the percentage siphoned off by the local 'thugs' (who presumably have significantly more money).
If that was true, then there'd be no revolts or any kind of civilian unrest in developing countries.
Also, I don't see why poorest of the recipients will somehow become more politically active because they got a immunity shot or a bag of rice. You'd have to subsidize them enough and assume that they'd only work 8 hours a day, and... then what? Why would they become politically active? Why not simply work more and pay for more important things?
Finally, it's a weak assumption that subsidies will induce that kind of change. If anything, they placate, which is why so many governments use tariffs, enact price controls, and subsidize their own peoples' food. Besides, if it really had that potential, then any thug would be keen to control it and take the credit.
There is no guarantee that a stronger political system will result from these donations. My point is that a persistent and stable political advocacy on behalf of these citizens is difficult, nigh on impossible, when almost all of their time is focused on the fact that they don't know whether they will have food tomorrow. Cash transfer programs have a proven record of leaving the individual with a permanently higher consumption rate*, giving them more time and energy to focus on improving their situation rather than subsisting at the bare minimum. Some of them may decide to just earn more money -- but that would also be good, because they'd be working in constructing a stronger and more stable market in their area, improving the economic conditions of those around them as well.
*The available evidence does not suggest that it 'placates' people because it's unlikely that any particular individual will ever again receive a charitable donation, at least on that level. However, if that's a concern you have with cash transfer, consider supporting microfinance organizations instead.
Think about what your stance implies. If you subsidize someone who is poor, they'd somehow become richer. If this was true, then practically zero people in the US would be poor due to decades of welfare subsidies. What else is missing from that equation, and what is it that developing countries lack or are deficient in?*
*those missing variables aren't encouraged by subsidies
This is a very weak argument, and you should be able to see why. The argument is not that subsidies to the poor necessarily means that they'd become richer. It means that, under certain conditions of poverty and certain forms of subidies, you can make many of them permanently richer. This has been demonstrated through a randomized controlled trial in the case of GiveDirectly, and in general is a claim widely supported by the evidence for cash transfer programs to developing nations. We can get into why this may work in Kenya but not in the U.S. if you want, but it's sufficient for me to see the evidence alone to act on it.
