Adumbration

One doesn't spend a year in equatorial West Africa as a youth without retaining some interest in what happens in the third world.  The words "basket case" frequently come to mind when I consider the struggle of people in Africa to overcome the impositions of colonial oppression, only to face subsequent decades of official corruption, varying degrees of socialism creating obstacles to sustainable development, and outright destruction and mass murder - internal conflicts with seeds arising from colonial divisions that bore little relation to the bounds of existing cultures.

With an interest in improving conditions in Africa, and more than a little skepticism as to the net benefit accrued by what passes for foreign aid from the US government, Heifer International has been on my charity list for a while.  What appeals to me about their approach is the apparent practicality of converting my dollars into livestock and bees and other things that people in impoverished rural communities can put to direct use to improve their quality of life - starting a sustaining production that serves their family and which excess is available for sale in their community.  A superior approach than trying to build a "school", which may turn into concrete and a roof, but less actual education*.

Some time back, I became aware of an institution that is taking a unique approach to making charitable contributions in the third world.  Give Directly gives cash with no strings attached, with the expectation that the recipients use it to pursue their own goals and priorities.  This approach has some appeal to my observations on other parts of this world - who better than the principles to know what it is they need to improve their situation.  While a cow might suit some people, a new roof will better fit the needs of others, and a small motorcycle could make possible a small taxi or delivery business for someone else.  Additionally are savings in administration; rather than needing a large staff of trainers and monitors and purchasers and what-have-you, the Give Directly approach just needs to identify recipients and find a reliable and safe way to send them money.

I am something of a promoter of voluntary exchange, not completely for reasons that those are the most likely means to gradually improve the general welfare.  The alternative, imposition by third parties on the terms and conditions of how we conduct our daily lives, tend to undesirable consequences if our objective is to improve the lot of ourselves and fellow human beings.  Aside from that practical consideration, I find objectionable the notion that it is morally acceptable for third parties to impose such terms on what are otherwise freely determined arrangements among the rest of us.

The Give Directly approach has some appeal to my predilections to bottoms-up modes of social organization, but is there any evidence that it does any good? - can the recipients really be trusted to use the windfall for something we perceive to be of value? or will they waste it on wine, women, and song?  Another question of perhaps greater importance - is their approach more effective than that of charities that will give almost anything except cash grants?  The treatment of those questions by the team at Give Directly is what made me pick them for recent contributions - they appear to be sincerely interested in answering those questions, and have been collecting data into what actually works to improve the conditions of people in the third world.

Here is a story from This American Life and a related story from Planet Money that discuss some of the features and challenges of the Give Directly program, with some comparisons to Heifer International.

* - For a deeper discussion of the what counts for education policy in the third world, see this discussion on econtalk with Lant Pritchett - schooling ain't learning.