Bigger, Stronger, Faster Giving
Ξ June 19th, 2008 | → 0 Comments | ∇ Op-Ed |
A recent article in Slate magazine makes a dire prediction for charitable giving – it may go the same way as the rest of the economy. Citing drops across the economic spectrum in donations to non-profits, the author notes that charitable giving is a lagging indicator. The article quotes Robert Evans of EHL Consulting Group as saying that this basically means, “…in the minds of some, philanthropy is a luxury. You pay your bills first, and then start making charitable gifts.”
This got me to thinking about the whole notion of giving itself. Although giving seems to be an inherently selfless act, isn’t it somewhat illuminating that as soon as the economy takes a slight downturn so does giving? If giving is so selfless shouldn’t the numbers behave independently of economic indicators? In another great Slate article from about a year ago, Tim Harford cited two studies that showed altruistic behavior is positively affected by selling lottery tickets rather than asking for cash directly and that average contributions from males increased significantly when approached by attractive white girls.
Not only does our giving turn out to be more selfish than we thought, but we tend to make bad decisions when we do. We’re not so good at reconciling the fact that we should be prioritizing the problems we can solve over the ones we simply wish we could solve. A great example that may annoy some is that global warming is actually one of the least cost effective philanthropic efforts to throw money at. If you don’t believe me check out this TED video featuring Bjorn Lomborg who gives a much more fascinating and in depth analysis of the top twenty humanitarian issues and ranks them in order of easiest and cheapest to solve to the most expensive and time consuming.
As eye opening as these facts are, I still think humans are basically generous when they can and should be. I’m continually overwhelmed by the outpouring of support elicited by natural disasters like Thailand’s tsunami. But, it does occur to me that these insights on human behavior highlight a few obstacles in harnessing the altruism of the general public through traditional charities. Firstly, their giving is dependent on the health of the economy. Secondly, as a group we don’t make the best decisions. Lastly, our giving can be distracted by things like lottery tickets and hot girls….can you blame us?
This is not an attack on charities, but recognition of the fact that perhaps we can find a better way to organize our approach to global problem solving. What if we lived in a world where businesses were expected to have eradicating poverty, eliminating water-borne diseases or reducing illiteracy as a primary focus of their mission statements? What if when the economy took a downturn it didn’t mean that giving had to stop? During the last few centuries we created a marketplace that seemed to funnel money into all the wrong places. It can’t be that hard to create one that funnels it into all the right places. With enough informed and passionate business leaders, I don’t think it’s impossible to create an economy of giving rather than one of taking.
