I keep hearing about people who want to send school supplies, clothing or shoeboxes full of "stuff" for Christmas. There seems to be something gratifying to those of us who "have" to send "stuff" to those who don't. I just think perhaps we might take a closer look and the impact of sending "stuff" instead of the less gratifying method of helping – supporting a local NGO in our target country with plain old money.
If you wanted to start up a small stationery store, would you do that if people in your neighborhood were getting free school supplies? I sure wouldn't. It would be too risky! I wouldn't be able to make any money with the products I seek to sell being given away. So every time we good heartedly send pencils and paper into a developing community, are we preventing a small business in the supply of those products from starting up?
Haiti has been plastered for years with Superbowl "Losers" t-shirts. Companies print up hundreds of thousands of Superbowl Champion t-shirts for BOTH competing teams so they can have the correct ones ready to sell immediately after the big game. The incorrect ones that show the actual losing team as "champions" are dumped proudly on Haiti – doing a good thing for the people. But is it? Did I just hear another shirt seller in Port o Prince closing their doors for the last time? A local textile industry will have a hard time starting and growing amidst all the clothing we in the north are "dumping" on the poor with the best of intentions.
So we go to the store and purchase goods (which helps our economy) so that we can feel good about stuffing shoeboxes and in the process, unwittingly inhibit the growth or possibilities for small local suppliers in the developing communities. Is there something wrong with this process? Could it be that they don't have access to pencils locally because we keep sending them pencils from here?
If we sent money instead we wouldn't really hurt our own economy. We wouldn't have to spend the energy to ship stuff to remote areas. The local NGO could help the communities with small business training and small loans to help the eager participants get started. Someone could set up – for instance – a small stationery shop. Instead of our money being spent "here" to provide free stuff "over there", our funds would help the poor to earn money so they could buy their own locally supplied "stuff".
There has been much focus in North American society and elsewhere about buying "local". The reasons are clear. This is important and WE NEED TO LET THE POOR BUY LOCAL TOO!
At times forcing the removal of trade barriers on poor countries has opened the floodgates for us to get rid of excess production or last years fashion or heavily subsidized agro. products at prices that effectively kill local industries in the poorer countries – removing jobs and ensuring EVERYTHING they have or use must come from us.
You tell me! Do you still think we should be sending "stuff" to the poor people in developing countries?
Photo: courtesy of SunSentinel.com
