It seems particularly hard to find information about the past impact of “gifts of livestock” programs (such as those promoted by Heifer International). I’ve been thinking about such programs conceptually, though, and I have a lot of trouble understanding the reasoning behind these programs. Two key points:
- It seems like giving out livestock brings with it all of the problems and challenges of giving out cash.
- It seems like giving out livestock also brings additional problems and challenges that don’t apply to giving out cash.
Giving out livestock brings the same problems and challenges as giving out cash
We’ve written before about the idea of cash transfers. One potential problem with giving out cash is that the more powerful people in a community may end up dominating (monopolizing?) the benefits. Giving out truly valuable gifts could interfere with power dynamics, incite jealousy, and fail to reach those that donors actually intend to help.
It seems to me that all of these concerns apply in full force to gifts of livestock. I doubt there are many people in the world who would turn down a free cow (I’m not sure I would). Even if one has no ability to take care of the cow, there is always the option of selling it (if one has access to markets) or simply slaughtering it and eating or selling the meat.
I couldn’t feel confident in a charity giving out livestock unless I saw compelling evidence that they were getting livestock to people in need, and not just to anyone (or just to the most powerful people) interested in free livestock.
Giving out livestock brings other problems and challenges as well
- Are the livestock in good health? Will they meet recipients’ expectations, or will they die or underproduce, potentially causing people to make bad plans and investments?
- Do the recipients of livestock gifts have the ability, in terms of knowledge and resources, to take care of the livestock well? (Similar problems as in the above bullet point could arise if they don’t.)
- Do the recipients of livestock intend to take care of the livestock well? Or is there reason to be concerned that gifts of livestock could lead to cruelty to animals?
- Are there other unforeseen consequences of introducing large numbers of livestock into a community? A few years ago, there were some allegations that “over grazing by goats in arid environments has disastrous effects on the fertility of the land … these ‘gifts’ merely add to the problems of hard-pressed communities because of the drain on limited resources the animal represents.” I haven’t been able to find any facts behind these allegations and I’m not sure what they’re based on.
- Most importantly, might recipients benefit more from other gifts - and why shouldn’t they make that assessment themselves? Perhaps the story Heifer International tells is correct, and livestock would make a tremendous difference for a family. If that’s the case, then a cash gift could be expected to be spent on livestock. If one of the many concerns above applies - or livestock is not what’s most helpful for any number of reasons we simply haven’t thought of - then a cash gift will be used on something else.
Why is it better for a charity to decide people’s needs for them? This question isn’t entirely rhetorical - there could be a good reason - but it seems that the burden of proof on a statement like “A cow is better for you than anything else you could buy with what the cow costs” should be on the charity.
Bottom line
I have trouble understanding the idea of livestock gifts, from the perspective of maximizing positive impact.
I understand that they make a good ad campaign, possibly because they draw people’s attention to the possibility of using a one-time gift to permanently escape from poverty (even though a cash gift can just as easily lead to a story like this, and could also lead to a lot of other positive stories that we simply haven’t considered).
It’s a scary thought, but it seems possible to me that these programs exist entirely because of how they can be marketed to donors, instead of for any reasons relating to maximizing good accomplished. What am I missing?
I can think of another reason to be concerned: what are the economic impacts on the wider community from these livestock donations? If large numbers of livestock are given away in a community, then perhaps that will drive down the market price for these animals - so reducing the value of the livestock already owned by everyone else in the area. And where are the animals purchased? If they are bought locally, then maybe the program will instead drive the market price up… which will make it harder for other people to buy meat and to invest in livestock.
Of course, whether these are significant problems depends on the specifics of the program design, and how intensely the livestock distributions are made (how many beneficiaries per community, and over what time period). The Heifer website is not particularly informative in that respect.
Rob, Heifer at least buys livestock in-country, which is pretty much guaranteed to distort market prices. Given the extremely high transport costs in Africa generally, I’m guessing that the effect is to raise prices in one region (perhaps in cities) and to lower them elsewhere.
Two quick thoughts in defense of livestock programs:
1)I once backstopped a project that procured livestock, and our tender for the animals was very very detailed about their state of health. I remember the sheep had to be either pregnant or capable of breeding, and free of any sickness, injury, or damage even if it didn’t affect the sheep’s ability to breed.
2) In patriarchal cultures, women may be able to receive a gift of livestock when they would not be permitted by their husbands to accept cash.
Scary perhaps, but surely not surprising? This seems entirely natural behaviour by organisations like Heifer as long as they believe that:
(a) some/most of the additional donor funds through livestock donations would not have been raised but for this campaign; and
(b) livestock gifts will do more good than harm (ie, better than the status quo).
Although both these claims are contestable, I think they could well have some instinctive appeal for some donor organisations.
Existence supported by pure marketability doesn’t seem like a scary thought, but rather like what I expect, in the business, government, non-profit and intellectual spheres.
Thanks for the comments, all. Alanna, in response to your points:
The program I was referring to was in Iraq, and it did seem to be genuinely true that having a woman earn a sheep my attending classes was acceptable in a way cash would not be. There was an implication of prostitution in a cash transfer not present with livestock.
Interesting. Thanks.
My problem with the Heifer model is that it doesn’t seem to make economic sense at a high level.
I admit I am not an expert (to put it mildly) in third world animal husbandry or land rights, but…
If a family in some poor rural area doesn’t have a cow or goat or whatever, it is probably due less to a shortage of animals than a shortage of land.
i.e. A cow is not a milk producing machine that you stick in your basement and go get your daily milk from. Rather, a cow needs land (or grain and such harvested from land). Given an adequate amount of land, it is easy to make more cows (start with one cow, add a bull, and soon you will have more cows/bulls). It is not so easy to make more land.
Yes, there may be instances where a family has land that is not being fully productive and adding a grazing animal may be a nice boost. But my guess is that the overall economic benefits of programs such as Heifer’s are rather more tenuous than the simple charity pitch would suggest.
Those reading this post may be interested in comments for this other post by someone apparently from Heifer, defending the organization:
http://blog.givewell.org/?p=505#comments
and in turn providing a link to this summary of an evaluation of Heifer:
http://www.heifer.org/site/c.edJRKQNiFiG/b.5647733/?msource=XS2M090001&utm_source=Heifer&utm_medium=Website_Banner&utm_campaign=ImpactStudy
The summarized evaluation is positive. Unfortunately, this is only a summary and it appears that the full evaluation is not public.
These seem important concerns. However, I sometimes go to scientific meetings with academic veterinarians (i.e., vets who teach at vet schools), and I have met several who work with Heifer and donate their time on trips to various countries. These vets were uniformly enthusiastic about Heifer Intl., and about the projects. So, a couple of points. First, Heifer is not just donating livestock; it is also donating expertise to go with the livestock. Second, people who are real experts in the field, and who have direct, first-hand knowledge of the work, are enthusiastic. Of course it would be nice to have objective evaluations of the programs, but the reactions of expert volunteers with direct involvement are fairly convincing to me.
Bruce,
Enthusiasm is great, but not in and of itself to generate impact. For example, there are plenty of programs which fly doctors from the US over to developing countries in order for them to do work such as cleft palate surgeries or obstetric fistula repair.
These charities generate a lot of enthusiasm by their participants (I know several personally), but universally fail when it comes to cost effectiveness. Flying people across the world, it turns out, is really expensive. Fistula and cleft palate charities are far more effective when the just hire local doctors.
Frankly, that Heifer is engaging in this kind of behavior makes me doubt the effectiveness of their program more, not less.
Cheers,
–Ian
The enthusiasm of veterinarians is encouraging on the “cruelty to animals” front. To be clear, I would guess that most programs make substantial efforts to deal with most of the challenges I raise. The argument of this post, though, is that livestock programs raise challenges that giving out cash does not, while still raising all the challenges that giving out cash raises.
Alanna has given one good reason to prefer livestock gifts to cash gifts in some cases. I’d like to know how often this is a key factor in the design of livestock programs. (Heifer programs often seem to be working with families, in which case it seems that the concern Alanna raised would often not be a factor.)
What I hate about Heifer is that they were sending out fancy brochures every other month plus calling me for more and even more money sometime weekly some times daily. I called direct and told them I would not be donating AGAIN so they did stop calling, but even so they send a fancy brochure at least twice a year. I also think the head of the “paid staff” is paid too much, based on the income of the group. I can donate locally with much better and direct results…shame of Heifer, because its program does connect with donors.
My sister works as a doctor at a clinic in Kenya. Her impression of livestock donations is generally negative - as other posters have pointed out, land shortage is the issue. The only way that livestock donations could help is if there were underused potential grazing areas that livestock could exploit. Even if this were the case Heifer requires that recipients have enough land to support the donated animal, which means that in a best case scenario there is no net change in food production, in a worst case there is a negative change, and of course only the relatively well off people benefit.
Chickens on the other hand are a different story.