4 ms·

Although some isolated initiative are great (Zuckerberg's pledge to education is presumably very much needed) most private charities are more expensive to manag

by bertil 16y ago

Although some isolated initiative are great (Zuckerberg's pledge to education is presumably very much needed) most private charities are more expensive to manage and often counter-productive. Government redistribution can have in well-run countries handling cost around 3-5%; too many charities are closer to 15%. Government handles essential concerns, permanent efforts, infrastructure investment, etc. while many private charities browse around, try something but have little follow-through after the first media coverage. Governments can have a more global view of things, that can help isolate massively more efficient efforts, even when they aren't popular, like prevention, half-way homes. A majority of public money is spend on things with little isolated, visible impact, but the marginal impact can be much higher. A lot of local leaders in Africa have criticized the B&M Gates Foundation for being too disruptive for the good of beneficiaries. I won't diminish the impact of being associated to massively successful people, or simply having spectacularly talented people manage those funds, but please don't confuse the good feeling of being in control with actual marginal impact.

rfrey 16y ago
Government redistribution can have in well-run countries handling cost around 3-5%; too many charities are closer to 15%. The charity costs include publicity and fundraising drives. To make apples-to-apples comparison you'd have to include the cost of the IRS infrastructure and the cost to society of the entire tax collection and avoidance machine. Government handles essential concerns That this is not self-evident is, well, self-evident. Much criticism of government spending is around governments focussing on whatever lobby yells loudest, while charities are market driven: i.e. they fill actual needs that someone sees in the community. A lot of local leaders in Africa have criticized the B&M Gates Foundation for being too disruptive for the good of beneficiaries. A lot of local leaders in Africa do considerably less well under a privately allocated distribution than they do from government aid.
- hugh3 16y ago
  Yeah, given that a lot of Africa's "local leaders" are a major part of Africa's problems I'm disinclined to believe what they say.
- bertil 16y ago
  > include the cost of the IRS infrastructure Nope: what matters is marginal costs and raising rates isn't nearly as expensive and cash-burning as “awareness” campaign. > whatever lobby yells loudest, while charities are market driven That statement appears self-contradictory to me. Lobbies introduce market concerns to a generally one-man-one-vote representative democratic process. My point about Africa is not about who should be labelled a leader or a government: it is that development doesn't need just money, it needs institutions, education, trust… Things that take time; things with massive externalities. Throwing billions like fastballs won't help anyone from benefitting from those. Do you think that William Kamkwamba (the heavily publicized boy who couldn't go to school, yet made a windmill himself) needs 10k$ or 100M$, or does he need roads, electricity, running water to his village? Of all the hundreds of charities that offered to help him, none suggested infrastructure. Local government are deeply corrupted, but all state-sponsored projects seem far more relevant for me, albeit less photogenic.

by bertil 16y ago

rfrey 16y ago

Government redistribution can have in well-run countries handling cost around 3-5%; too many charities are closer to 15%. The charity costs include publicity and fundraising drives. To make apples-to-apples comparison you'd have to include the cost of the IRS infrastructure and the cost to society of the entire tax collection and avoidance machine. Government handles essential concerns That this is not self-evident is, well, self-evident. Much criticism of government spending is around governments focussing on whatever lobby yells loudest, while charities are market driven: i.e. they fill actual needs that someone sees in the community. A lot of local leaders in Africa have criticized the B&M Gates Foundation for being too disruptive for the good of beneficiaries. A lot of local leaders in Africa do considerably less well under a privately allocated distribution than they do from government aid.

hugh3 16y ago
Yeah, given that a lot of Africa's "local leaders" are a major part of Africa's problems I'm disinclined to believe what they say.
bertil 16y ago
> include the cost of the IRS infrastructure Nope: what matters is marginal costs and raising rates isn't nearly as expensive and cash-burning as “awareness” campaign. > whatever lobby yells loudest, while charities are market driven That statement appears self-contradictory to me. Lobbies introduce market concerns to a generally one-man-one-vote representative democratic process. My point about Africa is not about who should be labelled a leader or a government: it is that development doesn't need just money, it needs institutions, education, trust… Things that take time; things with massive externalities. Throwing billions like fastballs won't help anyone from benefitting from those. Do you think that William Kamkwamba (the heavily publicized boy who couldn't go to school, yet made a windmill himself) needs 10k$ or 100M$, or does he need roads, electricity, running water to his village? Of all the hundreds of charities that offered to help him, none suggested infrastructure. Local government are deeply corrupted, but all state-sponsored projects seem far more relevant for me, albeit less photogenic.