AIDS in Africa is a good example of the problem with philanthropy. In some countries HIV infection rates are 40% of the population, so the epidemic is a major deadly human crisis which has Africa reeling with inability to cope. Loss of productive people to AIDS is a main factor in Zimbabwe's tragedy. However, the question is how to respond. Charities each have their own approach, and are accountable to their donors for policy. As a result, while they often help people in good ways, they also produce a disjointed confusion in the overall health system in the receiving country, with some places getting help, others not, and a messy debate about abstinence, condoms, faith, prevention, care, etc. This can all make it harder for health departments to plan and deliver budgets and programs. Better results require harmonised and coordinated approaches which build local national systems, and which set priorities according to evidence and need. Philanthropy is mostly much better than nothing, but it is generally incapable of the sort of harmonised input which is needed for sustainable development. In many African countries, aid money is available for HIV, but not for malaria, or for that matter, for road accidents, which is among the largest preventable causes of death and disability, but is seen as a dull topic by NGOs.DWill wrote:Robert,
Welcome back, and really interesting perspective on the topic. I think it might be as I suspected: Thoreau sees in the word philanthropy a particular, and to him noxious, form of helping. He doesn't have an aversion, per se, to helping those in need, from fugitive slaves to the poorest citizens in the town. I didn't think that philanthropy is a separate category from other forms of helping. Maybe some consider it to be so. I can't see the negative in efforts to stop the spread of AIDS in Africa, for example. Perhaps philanthropic organizations or NGOs go about it inefficiently; I wouldn't know.
DWill
The lack of response to the epidemic of road crashes in poor countries is an example of the policy distortion resulting from philanthropy. In Cambodia, road crashes are estimated to cause seventy times as much health impact as land mines, but the NGO campaign on land mines struck a popular nerve in the west, resulting in disproportionate availability of funding to address the much smaller problem. Paul McCartney's ex-gold digger lost her leg to a car accident, but campaigned on land mines. Just think if Princess Diana had become a pinup for the benefits of wearing seatbelts, as this could have saved her life. Systemic approaches require analytical study of costs, benefits and options, not marketing-driven efforts to separate rich people from their charity dollar. Another thing that would help is recognition by rich countries that reducing world poverty through sustainable development is a vastly better way of building their own security than spending trillions on weapons.