Fri, Dec 05, 2008

User login


Jewcy Book Club

This week:
and My Jesus YearDumbfounded
Welcome Authors
Benyamin Cohen
&
Matthew Rothschild
who are posting all week.
Coming up:
  • 12/08:
    Seth Greenland

 The Problem with Charity

The Problem with Charity

You can lead a horse to water...
Tamar Fox
 
Advertisement

When Zimbabwe recently cracked down on CARE—a leading humanitarian organization focused on global poverty which has spent more than $100 million in Zimbabwe in the last 16 years—I started thinking about how some charities do amazing work, but somehow don’t leave the people they serve any better off. This month, CARE would have fed more than 110,000 people who will now go hungry because President Robert Mugabe has limited the charity's access. It's upsetting that 110,000 people depend on CARE every month, and leads me to wonder whether charities like CARE and Feed the Children could be doing more to fight hunger and poverty long term, instead of always focusing on the immediate.

This is a tricky question. If someone is starving in front of you, it’s unimaginable to say to her, “Well, I’m going to give my money to an advocacy group that is helping to eliminate hunger long term.” But if that person is dependent on handouts from you and others, there’s little chance the problem will ever be solved.

Judaism places a high priority on giving time, money and resources to those in need. Over and over again, the Torah commands us to care for the widow, the orphan and the stranger among us. We are to provide food and clothing for those who need them, heal the sick, and bury the dead. But of course, it’s not that simple. Thousands of charities compete for our support every day, dealing with everything from hunger relief in Africa and animal cruelty in the States to global warming. Kids Can't Survive: without CAREKids Can't Survive: without CARE

Maimonides is famous for his ladder of tzedakah, or hierarchy of giving. The highest form of tzedakah, according to Maimonides, is to give an interest free loan, or to enter into a business partnership. To help someone get back on her feet and provide for herself is considered higher than providing immediate relief to a problem.

In some cases, immediate relief is all that is needed. In the aftermath of major natural disasters, immediate support in the form of food, water, clothing, shelter, and medical supplies is absolutely necessary, and may be all that can be reasonably done. But when we’re dealing with a long term problem with no end in sight, it may be better to think big picture and give to charities that are working on the roots of our problems, not the buds.



 
ThorsProvoni

ThorsProvoni


Tamar Fox leaves out an important detail associated with Maimondes recommendation to lend without interest.

 Sefer haMitzvot of Maimonides (twelfth century)[142] identifies positive commands:

  • to lend to poor Jews without interest and
  • to lend to non-Jews with interest[xxiii]

among the 613 commandments on which Jewish law (Halakhah) is based. (See Sefer HaMitzvot leRambam.[143])






Lauren


There recently was an interesting discussion on WAMU 88.5 FM (Washington, DC public radio station) about the kinds of things that people are more likely to give to.  A quick summary: people are more likely to give to a need they perceive as "urgent," even if an ongoing need is just as dire (an example: someone is more likely to ruin their $200 shoes by jumping into a pond to save a drowning child, rather than writing a $200 check to save a child from starvation on the other side of the globe), and people are more likely to give to others in their "tribe" or group (for example: an American is more likely to write a check to a flood victim in Iowa than to a flood victim in Myanmar, even if either flood victim is a stranger to the donor).  More on this at: http://pitchconsulting.blogspot.com/2008/06/why-so-urgently-in-need-of-u...





John


I will agree that it is a shame that 110,000 people will go without food per month due to aid being pulled out, but CARE does not look to keep these people dependent forever, they look to help them become self-sufficient. In fact CARE made a major statement last year by rejecting $45 million of U.S. federal aid because it would undermine local business. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/16/world/africa/16food.html?fta=y.  CARE's move to wean itself off of federal aid was considered by some within CARE to be  “an act of partial suicide”.

There is clearly a problem of building dependency, and CARE has clearly been guilty in the past, but it should be recognized they have "changed their ways".