As we all know, Haiti was struck by a 7.0 magnitude earthquake Tuesday, Jan. 12. About 200,000 people were killed as a result of the massive disaster, accoriding to the Pan American Health Organization.
By Monday afternoon, $123 million had been raised to assist those in Haiti without access to food or water, according to MSN Money.
Sounds great, right? But the outpouring may actually point to ignorance and self-righteousness. Why?
The two million rations needed per day to treat survivors, according to the United Nations’ World Food Programme, are certainly a worthy cause. But what about the 16 million people, according to Care.org, in Africa who are struggling for food? I didn’t see signs to donate to them when I bought my books this week.
Pretend that you distribute aid throughout the world and want to do the most good. How would you do it? An obviously sub-optimal strategy is to wait for a crisis and then channel large portions of the money to that location. Yet with the earthquake, Hurricane Katrina, and the tsunami in Thailand in 2004, that is exactly what many small donors do.
You could try to preempt such disasters, preventing deaths in the first place. In 1989, another 7.0 earthquake hit San Francisco and caused only 63 fatalities. I was 3 months old and living there at the time, and I slept through it all, thanks to the earthquake resistant technology in the buildings. You could spend your money installing this technology in Haiti and other places where earthquakes or general natural disasters might strike.
You might ask if such a strategy is any better, and I would say you are catching on. Large amounts of initial investment are required and most will never pay dividends. There are many places where money can be sure to do good, so if we only give to these places we are making progress. But where among them? Luckily for us, those priorities have already been studied.
In 2008, the Copenhagen Consensus convened experts in science with top economists for the second time to determine the most efficient areas of humanitarian spending. The result? The best way to spend was to provide micronutrient supplements for children.
Why, then, are giving priorities so grossly misaligned with the ideal solutions? It seems to me that we tend to give because it makes us feel good, not because of the magnitude of our impact.
Unfortunately, these donations are never examined and buy goodwill in times of crisis while downplaying thought-out contributions in normal circumstances.
Don’t get me wrong — I think these reflex gifts are better than nothing, and for anyone who is already selective with gifts, I admire your dedication. But if you have $10 and text messaging the next time disaster hits, take a mintue to think. If you are going to donate then, you should be willing to do the same to the other, more productive uses.
Ask Ben about good places to help at bjmorin@asu.edu
