Comments on: Philanthropy theater http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/04/01/philanthropy-theater/ A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: Holley87 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/04/01/philanthropy-theater/comment-page-1/#comment-30395 Thu, 01 Sep 2011 14:40:10 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=7788#comment-30395 I’d like to know, what did you mean saying about “making a real difference”. I guess I could come up with several ideas.

]]>
By: globalnomad http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/04/01/philanthropy-theater/comment-page-1/#comment-25658 Thu, 07 Apr 2011 08:45:58 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=7788#comment-25658 What a poorly researched post. I applaud your effort to highlight the many humanitarian crises which go under-reported and neglected, as opposed to the massive media coverage following the Japan and Haiti earthquakes, but including the relief effort following Haiti as an example of ‘philanthropy theater’ that doesn’t seem to make much difference in the long term anyway shows a very limited understanding of the context in which charities work. Charities don’t operate in a vacuum – they need an enabling environment and support from the government and authorities but this is lacking in most of the poorest and most dangerous and hostile areas in which humanitarian agencies operate. Haiti was already one of the poorest countries in the world before the earthquake struck and the administration was even more crippled by the event, unable to provide leadership and coordination to the many hundreds of agencies which responded to the disaster. The money raised by charities following the Haiti earthquake hasn’t been spent fast enough because aid agencies face 2 major obstacles to their work there – rubble, and disputes over land rights.

1. A year on from the earthquake, only about 5% of the rubble has been removed (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ 0,8599,2041877,00.html) – without land being properly cleared, aid agencies can’t build schools and hospitals, shelter, water and sanitation facilities, etc.
2. Disputes over land rights also limit the ability of agencies to shelter homeless people, provide facilities, etc. A recent article by Reuters Alertnet highlighted the problem, ahead of the upcoming hurricane season (http://www.trust.org/alertnet/news/near ly-one-in-four-homeless-haitians-faced-w ith-eviction-iom/)

Unless donors and individuals and organisations (including Givewell) move away from an obsession with numbers and adopt a more flexible approach to evaluation, which also takes into account the contexts in which aid agencies operate, funding will continue to be skewed towards causes which appear to provide ‘more bang for the buck’ than on a needs basis. The needs in Haiti haven’t disappeared – over half a million people are still living in camps and charities need and want to spend the funds raised for the recovery effort. However, aid agencies also need the authorities to provide sufficient humanitarian space in which to do their work. You’re right to suggest there should be as much focus on the ‘ouputs’ as well as the ‘inputs’ when giving aid but in cases such as Haiti, that should include more pressure on the authorities and organisations such as the Interim Haiti Recovery Commission, tasked with coordination of the relief effort, as well as measuring the performance of the charities themselves.

I have a suggestion – why doesn’t Reuters send you to spend a week at one of the hundreds of IDP camps in Haiti, ahead of the hurricane season, and report on your blog daily on what you’ve seen and felt? I’m sure the content would be a very different one from the ones which you’ve been posting recently on the theme of philanthropy from the comfort of your air-conditioned office in New York, and I would be very interested to read them as I’m sure many other Reuters readers would.
Perhaps your colleagues at Reuters Alertnet can also enlighten you on some of the issues that you’ve raised, as they seem to have a more informed understanding of aid and development..

]]>
By: timothyogden http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/04/01/philanthropy-theater/comment-page-1/#comment-25516 Fri, 01 Apr 2011 20:23:18 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=7788#comment-25516 I think the idea that philanthropy theater doesn’t cause harm is wrong. It cause harm in two ways:
1) there is the inevitable opportunity cost of donations directed to Japan that would actually be useful if applied to caring for the humanitarian disasters in Libya and Cote d’Ivoire.
2) There is the long-term cost in terms of faith in the non-profit sector that comes along with people making donations that don’t seem to have much impact. That process is amplified and exacerbated by giving to issues that qualify as philanthropy theater. It doesn’t acculturate us to giving to charity, it acculturates us to thinking that giving to charity doesn’t matter in the end anyway.

]]>
By: hsvkitty http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/04/01/philanthropy-theater/comment-page-1/#comment-25515 Fri, 01 Apr 2011 19:53:34 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=7788#comment-25515 Hmmmmm… thatmeans you admit your post title … “Don’t donate money to Japan” was Blog Theatre. You felt you were saying the right thing to make a difference so it seemed to you to be doing something good. Because you have never apologized (the updates blog should have added that) it seems you still feel that way.

I worry about the way in which bloggers continue to confuse over the top headlines to attract eyes, with good blogging. And to also use a few of your words, if you’re writing a blog which is respected and influences people who want to help, then telling them that they can’t help is never a good message to send.

I still prefer to think you meant no harm so can be forgiven, but only if you stop writing about it. That people like Limbaugh would use your column as a stepping stone for his racial and harmful remarks should have your head hanging.

Next time, think before you write that important headline if you really wish to do some good. Do some groundwork for people to give alternative choices and not just the place you found to be most “worthy” of your support.

One last thing… a reminder that those who are unmotivated and for the most part unwilling to give at the best of times, have an urge to give at the worst of times. Never try to stop the unmotivated from acting because they will be happy to return to being unmotivated as the Japan relief slow down that ensued from your post and other bloggers has proven…

]]>
By: jsullivan http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/04/01/philanthropy-theater/comment-page-1/#comment-25514 Fri, 01 Apr 2011 19:27:00 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=7788#comment-25514 So I gotta naive question: couldn’t one small way individuals could effect Japanese outputs is to purchase Japanese goods directly? I saw that cdjapan (http://www.cdjapan.co.jp/) was donating part of it’s sales to the Japanese Red Cross but maybe that’s less important than injecting money into the hands of Japanese distributors/artists/etc. So if folks when there and discovered something interesting like, I dunno, the Polysics, Boris or the works of Jun Ichikawa it would get more cash in Japanese hands (with the potential of opening up international interest in contemporary Japanese artists and creating some good ol’ growth in exports)?

]]>
By: davidseattle http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/04/01/philanthropy-theater/comment-page-1/#comment-25513 Fri, 01 Apr 2011 19:08:06 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=7788#comment-25513 You make sense, Felix, but I missed the part about “making a real difference.” What do you propose?

]]>