A reader asked about donating to alleviate the suffering in Haiti. In particular, making sure that the donations don’t go toward religious or Leftist ends. My own personal assumption is in line with the recommendations of the The GiveWell Blog:
A few notes:
- Unfortunately, “disaster relief” is not an area we’ve researched. When we’ve (very briefly) looked into the cause of “disaster relief” in the past, we haven’t found substantive, well-supported, specific recommendations for where to give. More at two posts from May 2008, following the cyclone in Burma:
- According to the Disease Control Priorities Project, emergency aid is one of the worst uses of donations, despite being one of the most emotionally compelling. For more, see our post on the cost-effectiveness of disaster-focused aid.
- Our intuition then, as it is now, is that the most effective way to help those in need is to give to effective organizations. A few of our recommended organizations have a presence in Haiti:
- The Stop TB Partnership provides tuberculosis drugs in Haiti.
- Population Services International has worked in Haiti since 1989.
- Partners in Health’s flagship clinic is located in Haiti.
What do readers think about this? It seems that the Haitian Earthquake is a major disaster in part because of long-term structural issues. On the other hand core human nature compels us to act in the interests of alleviating proximate suffering.
While supporting long-term, well planned organizations is certainly most efficient, I think one should be open to short-term, less efficient donations following major disasters. The two seem complementary.
I don’t believe that “core human nature compels” or even inclines anyone to act in any way here. That’s yet another case of humanists confusing “core human nature” with Protestant humanitarianism (yeah, I know that’s an oversimplified label). I don’t know what’s “proximate” about this suffering. Haitians are not our neighbors nor our brothers nor our friends. Until fairly recently, most peoples wouldn’t have done anything to help them, even though they could.
That said, I’m not knocking the Protestant humanitarian response. I’m sure you’re right that a lot of the suffering was largely caused by unsolvable social (or biosocial) factors, but still, the suffering can be alleviated by sending food, blankets, or whatever. You’re not trying to change their culture or teach them self-sufficiency or whatever. You’re trying to solve a short-term problem: to give people food to eat, etc. until they can get back to their normal situation.
Aaron: Who are neighbors, brothers, and/or friends?
Aaron, I believe the question here is not why one should or shouldn’t assist the victims of disaster, but how to do so most effectively.
The barebones GiveWell standards are concise and useful, as is the related discussion. Ideally, one would give to a reliable, efficient organization with an existing presence in the affected area. The first is easy enough to find and assess, but in most cases your contribution will go into the general till — directed (i.e. restricted) funds are simply harder, and more expensive, to process. Outside of the usual umbrella organizations, the ideal combination may or may not even exist, and must be sussed out on a case by case basis, depending on where and when the relief is most needed. Smaller groups on the ground who could actually use immediate contributions the most are often simply not equipped to receive them from remote locations.
Fortunately, the internet has reduced the traditional 6 degrees of separation. I look for leads from bloggers whom I consider reliable, and whether correctly or not, end up feeling fairly confident my dollars will actually make a difference on the ground. Avoiding lefty outfits is probably easy enough if you start out with conservative bloggers.
If you cannot abide directing your contribution through any organization with a religious affiliation, you might as well just give to the Red Cross or to a charitable cause closer to home. Unpalatable as it might be, the only groups who are likely to have a permanent presence in the worst hell holes on earth, with sponsors who can channel emergency relief funds directly, are also likely to be religious missions of one sort or another. The Catholic Church, for example, provides direct care to 25% of the world’s AIDS victims, large numbers of them in places no one else will even contemplate going.
Those who are not intransigently fastidious can sometimes find ways to foot the bill for actual goods like bottled water, blankets, foodstuffs, medical supplies etc. in lieu of cash contributions which might otherwise seem to be an endorsement of evangelism. At the local level, we feel relatively comfortable giving the Salvation Army second hand furniture, for example, rather than money, where they are the only group actually delivering assistance. When it comes to emergency disaster relief, I doubt that religious organizations have much time for proselytizing.
Aaron:
Sorry, my opening comment was a little hasty, in light of DH’s assertion as to core human nature. Perhaps substituting spontaneous human nature would be a less arguable proposition.
While I have no direct experience with the International Red Cross, I do have experience with the local unit and do not understand the seemingly disparaging phrase “you might as well give to the Red Cross”. Did I misread that?
Immediate ease of suffering is required before the more efficient and sustainable actions can occur. There are two institutions who do that best — the U.S. military and the Red Cross and I think they work together well.
My family has benefited more than once from Red Cross services, and we try to give back with time and money.
Huff Po reports that Rush has sentiments on the issue of aid to the miserable Hatians.
I suppose it’ll cast me as the monster of the flick, but I mistrust the motives behind charity directed outside of immediate family and acquaintances. Giving to faceless strangers by means twice- or thrice-removed smacks of altruism, and I follow the sentiments of Robert Heinlein where that vice is concerned: “Beware altruism. It is based on self-deception, the root of all evil.”
Donna B:
No, I didn’t mean to disparage the Red Cross. Given the query DH posed, I assumed the questioner was looking for a less obvious choice.
Apathy Curve:
Altruism is one of those kitchen sink concepts that has a way of being defined and redefined to suit too many individual predilections for my taste.
The authors and conmmentators at Secular Right certainly disprove the notion that ethics and charity are in short supply among atheists. What a feast of love and fellow-feeling is here inscribed!
Well, I’m not an anthropologist, but no, I don’t think that would make it any less dubious.
“Neighbors” refers to people who live in your neighborhood. A neighborhood is a subsection of a town or city.
“Brothers” was a synecdoche for kin, people related by blood (or let’s say genes, since this was Razib talking about “core human nature”).
“Friends” are hard to define, but they’re people who, because of your past personal relationship, you’d have a duty to aid in the event of an earthquake. Without trying to define friendship, I’d just note that typically you at least know your friends’ names and what they look like.
Aaron:
““Neighbors” refers to people who live in your neighborhood. A neighborhood is a subsection of a town or city.”
How 20th century! Those are pretty limited geographic horizons in a networked world — and one where your intellectual neighbors, or your electronic connections, just for starters, may ultimately be more significant than your literal neighbors.
“Gangs Armed With Machetes Loot Port-Au-Prince”
“Angry Haitians set up roadblocks with corpses in Port-au-Prince to protest at the delay in emergency aid reaching them …”
“Looters Hit UN Food Warehouse”
Just because they had an earthquake doesn’t mean they deserve anything.
The well respected public intellectual Danny Glover says the earthquake was caused by global warming and/or insufficient signing of documents in Copenhagen. His arguments are far too subtle and erudite for me to follow, though.
On the other hand core human nature compels us to act in the interests of alleviating proximate suffering.
Human nature compels us to do all sorts of things, and one of those things it compels us to do is to seek moral standing and acceptance among peers. That’s what you’re really doing.
I can see no reason to think that giving more freebies to Haiti is a good idea, under any circumstances, and if anything the evidence says it’s actually a bad idea. But it feels good and gosh-darn-it, people will like you!
Another interesting article by Theodore Dalrymple:
Haiti’s Apocalypse
http://www.city-journal.org/2010/eon0115td.html
(I put his stuff in quotes “” here).
…
“When you flew from Santo Domingo to Port-au-Prince, the border was as clearly visible as on any map, a straight line drawn on the earth’s surface: on the Dominican side, verdant, on the Haitian side, brown, bare as a desert.”
Check google satellite images and see if you can detect the border: I sure couldn’t.
…
“Moreover, descriptions of Haiti after the American occupation of 1915 make clear that the country received many benefits from it, whatever the attendant humiliations. As with other forms of external help, however, the occupation’s benefits proved temporary and ultimately fruitless.”
Check. Nothing unusual about that.
“Nor does voluntary assistance seem to do much better. It’s estimated that 10,000 voluntary organizations operate in Haiti—one for every 800 residents—but the effect, globally speaking, has been minimal, whatever good work each organization does individually. The whole is less than the sum of its parts.”
Same as above.
“Disaster relief is, of course, something completely different.”
And now for something completely different….more of the same.
“No one can remain unmoved by the pictures of Port-au-Prince after the earthquake (the situation outside the capital remains unknown, but one can imagine). Everything that can be done should be done: the financial resources necessary are, comparatively speaking, tiny.”
There’s the “completely different”: you’ll get more emotional satisfaction in this case. It doesn’t really matter that it will, once again, be “ultimately fruitless.” One might almost posit that the “10,000 voluntary organizations” and the UN (below) just make Haiti worse than it’d be if left alone. But…Earthquake! That’s completely different! (sarcasm, in case you’re wondering).
+++
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=10617&Cr=haiti&Cr1=
Haiti’s rising crime preventing humanitarian aid distribution, UN says
4 May 2004 – The rising crime rate in Haiti is restricting humanitarian aid distribution in the troubled Caribbean country, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) said today.
Human nature compels us to do all sorts of things, and one of those things it compels us to do is to seek moral standing and acceptance among peers. That’s what you’re really doing.
Beats the ideology-over-humanity school of thought.
“Gangs Armed With Machetes Loot Port-Au-Prince”
“Angry Haitians set up roadblocks with corpses in Port-au-Prince to protest at the delay in emergency aid reaching them …”
“Looters Hit UN Food Warehouse”
Wait? They looted a food warehouse? I guess they had no food and were starving, those evil people. Better they should malnourish themselves in dignity.
Exactly how do those actions set the Haitians apart from anyone else in the world facing the same situation. When people – any sort of people from anywhere – are unwittingly placed in a savage situation, it’s only a matter of time before they’re reduced to savages themselves. I don’t think there’s any doubt that if Le Mur hadn’t eaten in days, had no drinking water available, and had no idea if he was going to die of thirst or starvation before relief arrived, he’d unlock his rack and grab his machete as well.
Just because they had an earthquake doesn’t mean they deserve anything.
If you really wanted to do honor to your conservative principles, you wouldn’t advocate starving people to death. You’d call for private investment in Haiti.
Human nature compels us to do all sorts of things, and one of those things it compels us to do is to seek moral standing and acceptance among peers. That’s what you’re really doing.
I can see no reason to think that giving more freebies to Haiti is a good idea, under any circumstances, and if anything the evidence says it’s actually a bad idea. But it feels good and gosh-darn-it, people will like you!
How we choose to donate our money is our business, but thanks for the penny-ante analysis all the same.