Most people would say that charity is always good, but some
argue that charity is sometimes carried out badly, while others think that
charity can bring bad results even when it is well implemented.
Charities should not target symptoms but causes. Usually charity helps the recipient with immediate problem, but it doesn't do much to
deal with the causes of that problem. Some charities do stopgap or band-aid
work. But in fact, a lot of charity work is devoted to dealing with the
fundamental causes of problems.
Charity is wrong when it's used to patch up the effects of
the fundamental injustices that are built into the structure and values of a
society. Charity, from this viewpoint, can sometimes be seen as actually
accepting the injustice itself, while trying to mitigate the consequences of
the injustice. Charity should not become a substitute for real justice.
Charitable giving may not be the most effective way of
solving world poverty. Indeed charitable giving may even distract from finding
the best solution - which might involve a complex rethink of the way the world organizes
its economic relationships, and large-scale government initiatives to change
people's conditions. The effort and resources of the charity might be better
devoted to pressuring governments to bring about needed change. And governments
might be more likely to focus on dealing with poverty if they weren't being
helped by charities. Therefore, charity can be self-defeating if it allows the
state to escape some of its responsibilities. Large-scale philanthropy to
support 'essential services' is wrong because it switches provision from
government to charity, rather than increasing benefits to the needy.
Large-scale philanthropic activity carries with it serious risks of changing
the balance of funding from the public to the private sector, thereby exposing
those most in need to the changing state of the market. To the extent that
private funding of essential services becomes the norm, the vulnerable become
the recipients of uncertain aid, which is liable to fluctuations and constant
reduction.
If the charity sector increases spending in an area also
funded by government then there is a risk that government will choose to spend
less in that area with the result that governments save money, and extra
benefits provided by the charity spend are reduced.
The issue here is whether the charity we give to devotes a
high enough proportion of its funds to the needy. Responsible charities make it
very clear what proportion of contributions is spent on administration and
fund-raising. Charities are often accountable to the givers not the
receivers. If the purpose of charity is to benefit the recipients, it seems
obvious that those best able to say whether they are achieving this end are the
recipients. But because the recipients of charity are often unorganized and the
charity doesn't know their individual identities, it's often easier for
charities to make their performance reports to the givers.
Charities should also take accountability to the recipients
seriously and conduct research to tailor their actions more closely to the
needs and preferences of their beneficiaries.
There is a need to ensure charities and social enterprises
are aware of the best practices in the sector and work accordingly, else their
hard work and the funds of their donors will not only go waste, but it also can
become detrimental to the interest of the very same people, these charities claim to
serve.
Let me know your thoughts.
Khalid A. Khan
No comments:
Post a Comment