2 ms·
That makes sense. You only really need to get on the ground and deliver food when the supply chain in an area isn't able to provide. When the supply chain is wo
by imposterr 6y ago
That makes sense. You only really need to get on the ground and deliver food when the supply chain in an area isn't able to provide. When the supply chain is working, and you give away free food, you risk destabilizing that supply chain leading to more reliance on you. Instead, by providing money, you help feed the people and allow the supply chain to stay afloat and have people get paid.
A good example of how giving free items out can have unintended consequences https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/06/second-hand-clothing-donations-kenya https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/06/second-hand-cl...
- zxcmx 6y agoI think part of it is the images and stories used to "explain" hunger. Hunger is usually framed as a supply failure, not as a distribution failure. The picture is swollen bellies and the story in people's minds is "crop failure" or "civil or natural disaster", to which the logical solution would be "send food". ... because the natural next question to ask if it is a distribution failure and food is just sitting in warehouses and people are starving is: "why doesn't their government sort it out?". If the solution is to give people cash, there are awkward questions like "who are the importers and suppliers who will be collecting all this cash?" and the inevitable conclusion that "this is just government corruption with extra steps". To be clear, I think if one is to "give well" then doing it in an evidence-based way that will provide the most benefit is best. But I think it sets off a chain of questions that makes giving more morally complicated for many donors.