Yesterday, I was reading a post by my friend Chris Horst of Hope International, the microfinance institution, titled “How Then Shall We Help?” It struck a chord with me because its main topic was one covered by the microfinance and social venture professionals who came to speak at my class at Wharton during my last semester there.
Essentially, it addresses the issue of how we, as the “developed world,” should help the “developing world.” Now, many may take it as a given that we should indeed help those less fortunate than we are, but as Chris and others have cautioned before, we must be careful when we apply our own “developed world” thinking to others’ “developing world” situations. Are we really helping those we intend to help, or could we possibly be hurting them?
The Issue of Dependence
Case in point: The founder of Hope International, Jeff Rutt, took it as a given that helping the less fortunate was a good thing, and he expressed his compassion by making donations of food, clothing, and medical supplies to the city of Zaporozhye, Ukraine. However, a local Ukrainian pastor pulled him aside and told Jeff that his good-hearted efforts actually weren’t really helping because they were creating a culture of dependence instead of fostering autonomy and initiative, leading him into microfinance, where empowerment of those being helped is more likely to occur.
The Question of Need vs. Want
Another example of this interplay at work: Included in the investment thesis of many social venture funds (whether implicitly or explicitly) is the idea that the social entrepreneurs they are investing in should produce goods or services that actually help the developing world and are not ones simply targeted at base of the pyramid consumers that don’t really help the consumers. In other words, these funds keep in mind that the intent of investing in these entrepreneurs is not to create retailers for the purpose of developing a consumer culture like we have in the West, but rather partnering with entrepreneurs to effect social change. One company that exemplifies this is D.Light, whose mission is to “enable households without reliable electricity to attain the same quality of life as those with electricity. We will begin by replacing every kerosene lantern with clean, safe and bright light.” Their lights, which are solar-powered LEDs, provide sustainable power for those off the electricity grid by eliminating kerosene costs, and also increase safety by reducing the risks of devastating kerosene fires. Essentially, this would fall more into the “need” category rather than the “want” category.
Our Notions Regarding Standard of Living
Finally, one last example that references Chris from Hope International again. In his post, he talks about a trip he took with Hope to the Dominican Republic:
“I specifically remember a joyful little boy from my last trip to the Dominican Republic who was running around wearing nothing but a ratty, tattered t-shirt. His face was dirty, he had few possessions, but, in the midst, he was content.”
In other words, this example contradicts our “developed world” notion of increasing prosperity inevitably leading to decreased suffering, and that that poor living standards unequivocally result in terrible despair. Some may say that “they don’t know how good X or Y is because they’ve never experienced it,” but if there are those who are happy as they are, then should we still continue trying to “help” them? Or are we just leading them into a consumerist, planned obsolescence culture? Whatever the case is (and I don’t think anyone can really give a definite answer), I think that ultimately we should be careful of the implications of our actions, even though intentions may be good.
Final Thoughts
Sounds almost crazy, right? That helping may be detrimental? But I think it is important to remind ourselves not to fall into an imperialistic mentality or to delude ourselves with a “savior” complex. From the three examples I’ve mentioned above, I think we can draw three general principles in terms of guiding market-based approaches to alleviating poverty and other social problems. (I think some of these also apply outside of the market-based realm).
- When we strive to help others through microfinance and social entrepreneurship, we should not create a culture or attitude of dependence.
- When promoting goods and services to the developing world, we must strive not to force these products and services and those who do not need them. And furthermore, these products and services should ideally be ones that are either a) help generate income, b) help create cost savings (D.Light) or c) decrease risk of injury or disease (D.Light). I have not included “increase standard of living” in this list, because of the importance of the next and last point.
- At the end of the day, we need to understand the limitations of our developed-world notions of standard of living, prosperity, and happiness. While it is understood that starvation and disease and similar hardships are problems we want to eliminate, there comes a point at which defining the appropriate “standard of living” becomes a fruitless exercise, and trying to incessantly “raise the standard of living” may also be questionable. We should try and be careful not to create more problems while trying to solve existing ones.
Questions or comments? I’d love to hear your thoughts.
