Does charity perpetuate poverty?

Question

I'm seeking thoughtful answers on either side.

Answer 1

Charity isn't only about giving, but also about love. As the old saying goes:

Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day.

Teach a man to fish and you'll feed him for a life time.

They are both charity. But one sustains itself, while the other is a "band-aid". Do you love enough to bare with the man in patience to teach him How to fish, or will you do just enough(just giving him the fish) requiring no effort on the part of the man to better himself day after day(why work when you can wait on a hand out everyday)?

So the answer is yes, to a degree as well as no to a degree.

Feel me?

Answer 2

No because there is a strong inbuilt tendency for the rich to get richer in every society. Money breeds money. Capitalism accelerates the process somewhat, Charity makes the rich feel better about themselves, but hardly effects serious redistribution. Only if society and governments make really serious efforts to reduce inequality through tax and other fiscal means does poverty go down. The Scandinavian countries are an example, also the Dutch, a good standard of living and no really extreme poverty but really well worked out redistributive policies.

Answer 3

Yes and no.

By and large, it does not. At least charity at the local level. While some beggars might be able to make a living begging and might be also be able to hold down a productive job except that they would rather be beggars - I think the number of these people is relatively small.

However, it could be argued that massive charitable projects that fight hunger or disease on an international level just allow more people to live and this in and of itself contributes to more poverty. However, the idea that one should allow someone to die so that others might be better off seems cold, at best.

The third case might be institutionalized "charity" such as is practiced by the World Bank where funds are given to third world countries for development. In this case, poverty may well be perpetuated but it tends to be because the funds never reached the people who were intended to benefit from them.

Answer 4

As an economist, the answer is mixed. Certain charitable organizations, such as the Knights of Columbus, are in many respects the model of good charity. They were originally a "pass the hat," organization that morphed into an insurance company. It is a charitable membership organization. It allows people to pay for their own charity by paying a premium for life insurance, and receiving that charity when needed. Excess funds are used by the membership lodges for local and global uses that are directly measurable and observable. In other words, they can go and see that the work they do is valuable. The members pay "at cost," to protect their families.

Non-membership aid does seem to be a problem. When you provide aid to people you do not know, then you cannot measure its effects. Providing aid to family members permits you to see the consequence, or lodge brothers. Providing aid for someone on the street does not permit you to see the impact. Likewise, systematic aid systems like many of the large charities do appear to cause system wide harm in many circumstances.

The problem with large systemic aid is that it undercuts local societies abilities to solve their own problems. It often works out to undermine with overwhelming money, local solutions that would be superior.

So charity works when you can see the effects and judge when to stop helping. Charity seems to be a problem when you cannot judge when to stop and when to reallocate money rationally.

Answer 5

TattoomomKC gave the only appropriate and sensible response. I could no more convince you that charity is good than I could convince you that sugar is sweet. Try some, and find out for yourself. I am Roman Catholic. Merry Christmas and Peace to all. EDIT: I think you should drop the "yr" from your user name and add "ire." It would make more sense, and likely be closer to the truth. EDIT EDIT: The Catholic Church has established and continues to operate thousands of schools, colleges and universities around the world. The Catholic Church has educated more people than any other organization in the history of this world. We teach people to fish every day. We also teach people Mathematics, Philosophy, Languages, Engineering, Law, Medicine, Religion and Ethics, Biology, Chemistry, Architecture and just about every other potential academic subject. We do these things very publicly. Honest people know this.

Answer 6

There are micro loan charities that lend small sums to impoverished women (some men) The people who make the donations get paid back by the loan recipient, over the course of time after they have established whatever micro enterprise they started. I can't think of the name of the organization at this moment. Darn CRS syndrome!!

Answer 7

No,,,charity seems to have a different meaning when used in the old KJV. I think it meant LOVE. But back to the ans. THE WELFARE SYSTEM seems to be the culprit now,,,besides youth NOT prepareing themselves for the JOB market.

Answer 8

The wrong kind of charity does.

Give the man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach him to fish and he will be able to feed himself and his family from then on.

You have asked an intelligent question.

Answer 9

Not if you give a hand up instead of a hand out.

Heifer is a great organization because they actually help people become self sufficient. I also like The Pencil Project (www.thepencilproject.com) because they give kids the materials they need to suceed in school.

Answer 10

To throw money around is the easy way to silence your conscience, but for a person who´se needs are more than just material, it can do more harm than good.



http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,363663,00.html

Bokassa: "We ask the French for money. We get it, and then we waste it." -- Former Central African Republic leader