When we aim for something more ambitious than transferring our wealth to those in need, we’re often implicitly assuming that we have superior knowledge, compared to the people we’re trying to help. This seems to me to be the sort of thinking underlying this comment: “how does handing out cash build community, solve macro problems, provide a base for effective activism?”
One thing I believe the developed world can teach the developing world is facts about medicine. For example, many people in developing-world communities do not know as much as we do about how HIV/AIDS is transmitted, how diarrhea is contracted, and what to do about it. We can share and promote facts about these diseases that do not depend on local politics, customs, etc. (for example, wearing a condom drastically reduces the risk of transmitting HIV). So far, so good.
What else do we feel confident that we can teach the developing world?
Do we have superior knowledge of how to run a business? Within their political, cultural and economic environment?
Do we have superior knowledge of how to build a healthy civil society? Of how to run their community?
Before we insist on “teaching” others about these things, we have to ask why we think we have things to teach. I’m not convinced.
Comments
I actually take issue with the statement that we in the developed world can teach developing world communities something about HIV. It depends on the communities, actually.
For example, I study Malawi, where HIV has reached the general population (11.8% national prevalence). Knowledge about HIV is arguably better in Malawi than it is in the US. For example, comparing the 2004 demographic and health survey in Malawi to a 2009 Kaiser Family Foundation survey in the US, you see more Malawians know that HIV can’t be transmitted by food than the proportion of Americans who would not eat food prepared by someone with HIV.
Unfortunately, UNAIDS statistics are misleading — making all of us in the West think that folks in countries hardest hit by AIDS know little. They know a lot. They go to 4 funerals a month. They see people get slim, sick, and eventually die. It’s probably not that they don’t know that condoms are protective — they might just have a different opinion on the efficacy of condoms, especially since they’re not always available and negotiating condom use is a touchy subject.
Perhaps this is just more evidence that we need to ask why we think we have things to teach.
Completely agree that it depends on the community. I meant that many people in the developing world do not know as much about how HIV/AIDS is transmitted; in some cases, there is a clear opportunity for teaching. But your point is taken. Donors should look for an HIV/AIDS education program to be documenting the changing state of knowledge, not simply going into an area assuming that their educational activities are both needed and effective.
The difference is that I’m not sure how I could be convinced that there are any clear opportunities for teaching people about business or community vitality. I’m not sure what we have learned about either of these things that is generalizable.
If you’ve ever been to a bookstore in Africa you’ll notice that the stock is about 75% business books (most of them from the US). So it seems that Africans think they have something to learn about business.
And they are probably right. Growth comes from the formation of official formal sector firms, the bigger the better, and the gradual replacement of the millions of unofficial entrepreneurs (paraphrasing La Porta and Shleifer 2009). Large formal firms need accountants, marketing, salespeople, managers, all skills which are probably teachable and can be effective regardless of local culture etc.
If you’ve ever been to a bookstore in Africa you’ll notice that the stock is 75% business books (most of them from the US). So it seems that Africans think they have something to learn about business.
And they are probably right. Growth comes from the formation of official formal sector firms, the bigger the better, and the gradual replacement of the millions of unofficial entrepreneurs (paraphrasing La Porta and Shleifer 2009). Large formal firms need accountants, marketing, salespeople, managers, all skills which are probably teachable and can be effective regardless of local culture etc.
This is ridiculous. The majority of people know nothing about how diarrhea is transmitted. It just so happens that poor countries have bad sanitation, wealthy countries have good sanitation. You should start having a less judgmental and superior attitude.
Lee, interesting observation. Perhaps teaching formal-sector skills could help developing-world economies; I personally haven’t seen evidence either way. It’s worth noting that I haven’t seen any charities that seem to focus on attempting what you describe; education programs tend to focus on agriculture and micro-enterprises among other things.
David, I was sloppy with my use of the term “we”; the important point to me is that education on hygiene practices – even unaccompanied by improved sanitation – can lead to improved health outcomes. This is based on my understanding of the empirical evidence – see this Cochrane review. I’d also like to note that many charities put a significant amount of resources into education on health practices, economic practices, etc., which implies that they feel there is something to teach. Rather than focus on whether this feeling is “judgmental and superior,” we should focus on whether it’s accurate (and thus whether these programs can be expected to be beneficial).
Of course I accept that encouraging hand-washing reduces the spread of disease. My problem with how this was phrased, is that it assumes people living in a developing-world country would actively choose not to wash their hands, whereas the problem is the infrastructure and overall system. A US city of 10,000 people and a shanty town of 10,000 people have very different facilities, and different choices to make (e.g. water to drink or water to wash hands). Not that US hand-washing standards are exemplary to being with (one example )
While focusing on effectiveness is relevant, I found the above paragraph extremely patronizing and offensive.
Comments are closed.