Is donating money to charities that operate in Africa a waste of time?

cjbh

Let's be honest, the continent is still a bit of a $hithole.

How do we know our money isn't going straight to some dictator?

Why is the situation not improving?

Does it depend on the particular charity?

My name is URL

Why donate to Africa when theres people struggling to get by in Ireland?

admiralofthefleet

i dont. i dont want most of what i was to give to them going on administration and tv/radio adverts.
i would say miriam o callaghan doesnt come cheap (with regards to her fee for doing the ad)

Celly Smunt

charity starts at home,i don't understand people sending money abroad when it could make such a difference here

pikachucheeks

Why can't they just print more monies and solve their debt?!

CreepingDeath

Donating money only compounds the problem.
If the people can't live off the land to start with, then feeding them without population control is only causing more problems for both sides.

I think I read somewhere that the Ethiopian population has doubled since Bob Geldof's Live Aid ? (1985 : 42 million ), (2009 : 83 million) Sure what good is that to anyone.

Throwing money at people doesn't solve the root problem.
The population "should" be able to live off the land they have, by whatever resources available ( natural, solar, intellectual, agricultural etc ). If they can't, they shouldn't be subsidised to make the matter worse.

themont85

My name is URL wrote: »

Why donate to Africa when theres people struggling to get by in Ireland?

Everythings relative, we may be up shít creek but at least we have food and clean water.

John O'Shea the CEO of Goal is a known critic of the way aid is distributed to African Governments and believes in various other means of giving it out.

Personally I don't see it as a complete waste of time giving money to NGOs who have people on the ground who know what to do. What grinds my gears is people who fundraise money for 'their charity work' for maybe a once of two week stint in a poor country when the money you give is for their flights and they do fúck all over there. I've done some work in these places before and a lot of people just do it for their own experience to see poverty and maybe help a little (which is fair enough), but I reject paying for them to do this.

whiskeyman

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Throwing money at people doesn't solve the root problem.
The population "should" be able to live off the land they have, by whatever resources available ( natural, solar, intellectual, agricultural etc ). If they can't, they shouldn't be subsidised to make the matter worse.

They should scrap the dole so...

themont85

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Donating money only compounds the problem.
If the people can't live off the land to start with, then feeding them without population control is only causing more problems for both sides.

I think I read somewhere that the Ethiopian population has doubled since Bob Geldof's Live Aid ? (1985 : 42 million ), (2009 : 83 million) Sure what good is that to anyone.

Throwing money at people doesn't solve the root problem.
The population "should" be able to live off the land they have, by whatever resources available ( natural, solar, intellectual, agricultural etc ). If they can't, they shouldn't be subsidised to make the matter worse.

O'Shea has a good quote i lifted of wiki about the corruption in Africa and what little effect Live 8 ect has "There is a fire raging - we need someone to put out the fire not hand out chocolate".

apsalar

sh*thole.......have you lived there? do you know any patriotric or proud africans? I hate the way some people will say ..oh, that dump, that sh*thole, that whatever about any place. A lot of the continent may be poor but sh*thole? I would think only war-zones would fall in that category and so far as I know, only certain parts of the continent are at war...much like the middle east, or asia

So I would like to know how an ENTIRE continent becomes a sh*thole.....

But to answer your original question:.....

I don't think aid is of any use to any developing country. It doesn't help anyone outside corrupt governments receiving this money, and no, I don't give money to such charities when I think it could go further with Barnados or another children's charities. A cutting off of all aid would soon starve corrupt governments and would be an impetus for social revolution from the local populace in developing countries

My name is URL

themont85 wrote: »

Everythings relative, we may be up shít creek but at least we have food and clean water.

John O'Shea the CEO of Goal is a known critic of the way aid is distributed to African Governments and believes in various other means of giving it out.

It doesn't matter how much money they receive in the end, as long as Africa's debt is been called in by other nations, that's where the money ends up

it's like putting a plaster on an axe wound

CreepingDeath

whiskeyman wrote: »

They should scrap the dole so...

Sounds good to me, I've never claimed a single week of it in my life.
But us private sector people are carrying the public sector and dole scroungers at the moment. So overall, you could argue the country was doing well and is just going through a bad patch and we can all live off the same land.

cjbh

TBH I have a direct debit going for years (with Trocaire) and I'm just wondering if I should cancel it or not.

I started it probably to:
1. alleviate my conscience
2. I was kinda religious back then and thought my good deeds would be noted :rolleyes:
3. As someone has said, Africa's problems are a lot worse than ours

But I just wonder if I'm pi$$ing in the wind...

tallaght01

Of course we should donate money to Africa. People have no idea about how effective that money is.
I have no idea where people get the idea that giving money to the red cross or MSF ends up with money going straight to dictators.

Most of the big charities do very good work.

LOts of people in Africa can now get treated for HIV and malaria. People have clean water. Kids go to school. Kids get immunised.

Just because the continent "is a kip" doesn't mean that aid doesn't work.

It's insane to say that aid is pointless. It's also insane to say we shouldn't support overseas aid, when there are Irish having it tough.

You can't compare the scale of the problems in both places.

I always think it's gas that, whenever this topic comes up, the same people saying "Look after our own" are the same people who say "the dole is too much!!!!".

Thankfully Bill Gates etc have taken away much of the third world's reliance on the whims of the public.

jumpguy

pikachucheeks wrote: »

Why can't they just print more monies and solve their debt?!

Zimbabwe cleverly tried that. Nearly everyone is billionaires. The even have a billion Zimbabwean Dollar note now. Sadly, it'll nearly cost a few billion to buy a tin of beans. All it's done is make everyone require a calculator for anything they want to buy.


Oh yeah, the topic. Donating to Africa. Of course you should. Those charities do good work. People starving all over the world, and the Irish are too mean to help them? Think of what you're saying. "I don't wanna donate." Some poor young fella in Nigeria depends on your donations to live. If everyone takes up this attitude, it'd be like global negligence. More first-world fat catism (I made the damn word) if you ask me.

triple-M

cjbh wrote: »

Let's be honest, the continent is still a bit of a $hithole.

How do we know our money isn't going straight to some dictator?

Why is the situation not improving?

Does it depend on the particular charity?

yes it is a waste of time havent you ever seen the starvin marvin episode of south park?

newmills

I remember jeremy clarkson saying that for every pound donated to africa it will really help a dictator upgrade his mercedes to a newer, better model.

mike65

At the level of the local village it works or certainly can do, at the continental level its a total failure. Its the only continent that has got poorer in the post world war two era.

themont85

My name is URL wrote: »

It doesn't matter how much money they receive in the end, as long as Africa's debt is been called in by other nations, that's where the money ends up

it's like putting a plaster on an axe wound

Overly simplistic and pessimistic. Yes money donated through Governments can go to that but also corruption loses a good deal of this money also. And if they just cancelled the debt a good few of the Governments would get into the same mess again with poor governance and corruption. Africa will continue to need as much help from us giving a few euros of our change to NGOs for as long as some of these cowboys remain.

Donating to NGOs is the best option. There are a lot of good people in Trocaire, Goal and Concern who wouldn't be doing what they were giving up long hours for if it didn't help the population on the ground. You may say that is just plastering an axe wound but these are people too not just a statistic. You do help people by giving a few euro belief it or not. I know we all hear it and sick of it from the ads but there are people starving et al there, if you heard of that here in Ireland it would be called a disgrace and inhuman not to give a couple of euro even if it was just to plaster the axe wound.

apsalar

tallaght01 wrote: »

Of course we should donate money to Africa. People have no idea about how effective that money is.
I have no idea where people get the idea that giving money to the red cross or MSF ends up with money going straight to dictators.

Most of the big charities do very good work.

LOts of people in Africa can now get treated for HIV and malaria. People have clean water. Kids go to school. Kids get immunised.

Just because the continent "is a kip" doesn't mean that aid doesn't work.

It's insane to say that aid is pointless. It's also insane to say we shouldn't support overseas aid, when there are Irish having it tough.

You can't compare the scale of the problems in both places.

I always think it's gas that, whenever this topic comes up, the same people saying "Look after our own" are the same people who say "the dole is too much!!!!".

Thankfully Bill Gates etc have taken away much of the third world's reliance on the whims of the public.

You're right tallaght, but the aid I'm speaking of is direct government aid.

Yes, no doubt, free anti-retroviral medication (from lower cost companies in India), wells, school supplies, etc are a by-product of some of the aid delivered through ngos. And this is extremely well-received and goes so far as you know.

However, the problem is that ultimately there are many underlying problems with the democracies and indeed economics of some the recipients of foreign aid that are masked by aid. What impetus does a government have to look to the welfare of its own and develop a sustainable economy when a large percentage of their budget may come from foreign donors?

You're right, most ngos do a great job, but I still beleive they are part of a larger problem, and one that ultimately maintains an imbalance between the west and the rest by suppressing local development in ways that have been discussed here numerous times before.

mike65

tallaght01 wrote: »

Thankfully Bill Gates etc have taken away much of the third world's reliance on the whims of the public.

So they are reliant on the whims of a single man (and his missus). Not progress really.

blubloblu

Concern are very efficient with how they use their funds.

CreepingDeath

tallaght01 wrote: »

LOts of people in Africa can now get treated for HIV and malaria

And that will lead to a population explosion which will lead to famine again
at some time in the future.

According to WHO Link, maleria accounts for 18% mortality rates in 0 - 5 year olds.

So if we completely cure malaria tomorrow, you can expect a population boom of 18%+
Solving one problem out of a concept of charity, doesn't solve the overall problem. China has population control, and Africa needs it too, or else we're solving one problem only to create another.

It may sound right wing / nazi or something, but I'm looking at the big picture and not taken in by the marketing photos of big brown eyed children on posters.

Sam Kade

I don't think much of the €7/month they want people to pay would reach them maybe only €2-€3/month. I wonder how much Miriam o Callaghan sends them every month.

ascanbe

Africa won't progress further unless it is allowed to trade fairly.
So called 'charity' from the west, which is akin to me stealing a thousand euro from you then giving you a euro so you won't starve, certainly doesn't help much if you look at the big picture.
Still admire people who work on the ground for these organisations, though, as they are dealing with the problem on an individual level.
Got to laugh at the condescending, smug attitude of some of the posts here, though; we have had every chance to make something of our country and we've bankrupted ourselves.

My name is URL

themont85 wrote: »

Overly simplistic and pessimistic. Yes money donated through Governments can go to that but also corruption loses a good deal of this money also. And if they just cancelled the debt a good few of the Governments would get into the same mess again with poor governance and corruption. Africa will continue to need as much help from us giving a few euros of our change to NGOs for as long as some of these cowboys remain.

It's not even about the fact that NGO money isn't touched by the governments of each country, if the debt was canceled it'd free up alot of money that the governments could actually use to make a difference, even those evil dictators know that a productive population is of more benefit than one that relies on handouts.

Praetorian Saighdiuir

Im not gonna say that its a waste of time, but it certaintly could be used a lot better.

Iv been to some seriously rural villages in Africa, where aid agencies have gone in with our donated money. Its all happy days for a week or two. They will build schools, churches and water wells etc with the money. As soon as the aid agency pulls out and moves to another village, the locals rip down the church and use the materials for their own "homes", the schools are used for training the local rebels and the wells are contaminated by locals who want to control the village....and there will still be the customary 10ft boarding that states "this village has been sponsored by <insert Irish aid agency>"...this too will become someones partition wall.

Its just not working because the locals dont give a f*ck about themselves!

On the other hand, food and water is badly needed in that place. The majority of donations should go towards this.

Cadiz

cjbh wrote: »

Let's be honest, the continent is still a bit of a $hithole.

How do we know our money isn't going straight to some dictator?

Why is the situation not improving?

Does it depend on the particular charity?

I know our problems were never in the same league, but it's just as well the EC/EU didn't take that view about Ireland..

tim0ney

I have taught in schools in Zambia, and seen the compounds where people live [think District 9 here], the "hospitals" [where out-of-date medicines were sent under the banner of "government aid"], and worst of all, the prisons. Truly horrific places that I still can't get out of my head.

There are some genuinely extremely bright and talented kids there, who go into school even when it's a day off! Some of the best people I have ever had the pleasure of meeting. Some are out-and-out crooks, but you have that in every walk of life.

As someone said earlier, local-level funding makes a huge difference. We paid for a solar-powered well, that gave clean water to 10.000 people. That kind of thing shows an immediate benefit! It was built in 2003, and is happily still standing.

That said, aid can only go so far IMO. There is a culture of corruption out there that needs to be dismantled - in Zambia, the root of this [i think] was the fact that the colonial British government pulled out very quickly in the 1960's. They had no idea how to run their own country, and it was exploited by a wide variety of people [natives, colonials, and companies].

Eventually they will have to stand on their own two feet, and that's impossible to learn if someone is holding you up.

You Suck!

Just a quick comment on how fuckin bloated NGO's are. They might justify the costs in that they need to compete for competant people and cover their equipment costs, but frankly I've seen private companys with more modest expenses costs. Go to Phenom Penh in Cambodia, and all you see are vast armys of SUV's, Flash complexes, and big houses for the NGOs.

This does not devalue the work that they do, or it's importance, but none the less it feels as if they have lost their focus, and it does devalue your contribution which they sell to you as being a direct contribution to the people who they help.

In a business sense I do agree that NGO's need to compete, that the structural changes they have taken on have helped them grow and extend their services, but this has come at a cost to efficiency IMO, and in this case efficiency being the ratio of service provided to the cost of lumping out a first class lifestyle to their execs and employees.....this just doesn't sit right imo. And it doesn't fit the image they sell either.

tallaght01

apsalar wrote: »

You're right tallaght, but the aid I'm speaking of is direct government aid.

Yes, no doubt, free anti-retroviral medication (from lower cost companies in India), wells, school supplies, etc are a by-product of some of the aid delivered through ngos. And this is extremely well-received and goes so far as you know.

However, the problem is that ultimately there are many underlying problems with the democracies and indeed economics of some the recipients of foreign aid that are masked by aid. What impetus does a government have to look to the welfare of its own and develop a sustainable economy when a large percentage of their budget may come from foreign donors?

You're right, most ngos do a great job, but I still beleive they are part of a larger problem, and one that ultimately maintains an imbalance between the west and the rest by suppressing local development in ways that have been discussed here numerous times before.

I can take that point when it comes to countries like Zimbabwe or Sudan. But there's a lot of governments in Africa who are willing to get stuck in. Uganda have done very well at controlling HIV. Malawi are trying their best, as are the Ethiopians. There's lots of other examples.

There are lots of ways in which govt aid has been, and continues to be, very successful.

wondering

cjbh wrote: »

TBH I have a direct debit going for years (with Trocaire) and I'm just wondering if I should cancel it or not.

I started it probably to:
1. alleviate my conscience
2. I was kinda religious back then and thought my good deeds would be noted :rolleyes:
3. As someone has said, Africa's problems are a lot worse than ours

Same as that now... cancelled the direct debit to sightsavers and Trocaire and started a 14 euro direct debit to Barnardos instead, and my call to action was the TV ad. (so I know it cost a lot of money, it is very well made, but it made me donate).

tallaght01

mike65 wrote: »

So they are reliant on the whims of a single man (and his missus). Not progress really.

The Bill+melinda gates foundatin has been responsible for huge progress in the developed world. It's a huge organisation. Not just one man lol.

CreepingDeath wrote: »

And that will lead to a population explosion which will lead to famine again
at some time in the future.

According to WHO Link, maleria accounts for 18% mortality rates in 0 - 5 year olds.

So if we completely cure malaria tomorrow, you can expect a population boom of 18%+
Solving one problem out of a concept of charity, doesn't solve the overall problem. China has population control, and Africa needs it too, or else we're solving one problem only to create another.

It may sound right wing / nazi or something, but I'm looking at the big picture and not taken in by the marketing photos of big brown eyed children on posters.

Well, there are more humane ways of population control that are being actively pursued.....later age of marriage, gender equality, accessible birth control. "letting kids die of malaria" wouldn't be one of the more sensible options.

ascanbe wrote: »

Africa won't progress further unless it is allowed to trade fairly.
.

This is an extremely good point.

Cadiz

A stinging article on the subject ..

http://www.mg.co.za/article/2007-12-03-oxfamming-the-whole-black-world

marco_polo

While Aid is all well and good and shows that peoples hearts are in the right place, an easing of some of our protectionist agricultural policies would be of far more benefit to the third world.

Unfortunately it would not be a very catchy election slogan around these parts.

Joey the lips

cjbh wrote: »

Let's be honest, the continent is still a bit of a $hithole.

How do we know our money isn't going straight to some dictator?

Why is the situation not improving?

Does it depend on the particular charity?

I read a brilliant book by an ecomomist on this and having a backround in economics I have to say i believe it is a waste of money. However in my heart I admire the work charities do so find it hard not to give to them.

But ask yourself this. Look at ICELAND. one the verge of bankrupcy. The IMF and the world bank is helping it. It will prob get by. Look at cameroon. The worlds most corrupt country. The IMF and world bank are helping it to. Why is the money not making it down through cameroon.... Corruption and unstable goverments. The goverments know they will only last till the next coup so take as much as they can.

The_Kew_Tour

My name is URL wrote: »

Why donate to Africa when theres people struggling to get by in Ireland?

I have to say thats a very good point. Its harsh and it be nice to do something for people in these countries but we have to look after ourselves first

flyton5

I personally refuse to donate any money to african charities on the grounds that sooner or later there will be no incentive for the people of certain countries to do anything for themselves. If anything, projects like Live Aid do more harm in the long run. Population explosion and not nearly enough food to go around is obviously the main problem and then you have AIDs to deal with. Send condoms. Two birds with one stone.

SomeFool

cjbh wrote: »

Is donating money to charities that operate in Africa a waste of time?

YES

kowloon

themont85 wrote: »

What grinds my gears is people who fundraise money for 'their charity work' for maybe a once of two week stint in a poor country when the money you give is for their flights and they do fúck all over there. I've done some work in these places before and a lot of people just do it for their own experience to see poverty and maybe help a little (which is fair enough), but I reject paying for them to do this.

I despise people who go on holidays under the aegis of charity.

I'm not talking about people who actually go somewhere and do something, be it a group building housing, installing water treatment facilities, running a school or a health clinic etc.

The people who get up my back are people who go mountain climbing 'for charity' and the likes. I went skydiving a while back and while I was waiting for my call up I had a look at some of the brochures, one of them was advocating the practice of 'if you can't afford it yourself, why not do it for charity?' Anyone who can take money for charity when most of the money is paying for 'the experience' has a thoroughly broken moral compass.

Elliemental

A friend of the family spent a lot of time in various African countries, working as a doctor for some charity, and I remember her saying that a lot of money donated to the likes of Christian Aid ending up being held back by corrupt government officials etc. The usual horror stories. But organisations such as Oxfam, who`re well used to dealing with these countries are pretty reliable, and always seem to get the Aid through to those who need it the most.
If people need help, does it matter where they are? Whether its home or abroad, we`re all human.

Jam-Fly

Most people here seem to be talking about the big charities, GOAL, Trocaire etc.

The problem I have with these charities is 1) Much of the money donated goes to advertising, rent cost for offices in Dublin, paying people to do work for Trocaire etc. and 2) If I donate €100, how many people does it go thru before my cash reaches the kids in Africa? And how much of the €100 will that child get?


What about the smaller charities that don't spend money on stuff like advertising and give the money directly to the poor Africans who need it? What do people think about those charities?

brendansmith

Elliemental wrote: »

If people need help, does it matter where they are? Whether its home or abroad, we`re all human.

I love helping people be they my own family or someone elses. I think we all need to help those in need.

kincsem

I don't know as much about real life in Zambia as the teacher who posted above. I worked as an accountant there for two years in the 1970s.

Problems in the 1970s were -

No real democracy. It was a one party state, with an all-powerful president.

Tribalism. About a dozen main tribal groups. The chief executive of a company will staff it with his own tribe. Worse than black and white.

Girls will have five or six children before they are 20. Live for the minute attitude. You have a car. Guy has no car. He takes car. Break-ins all the time. Plenty of white-collar crime, and appointees doing no work.

Unemployment of 70%. No real economy outside copper mining, and state owned businesses (inefficient). Some UK and US multinationals.

Comfy aid agencies. I was on 8k, some British aid workers were on 70k (UK salary "benchmarked" at local 40%+ inflation rates.)

Wild west enforcement of law. Police largely self governing / erratic.

No business sense, few trades workers. Daft economic policies e.g. the staple food, mealie meal (corn) had a maximum price. Good for the general public, and popular. Unfortunately, the price set was less than the cost of production so the big farms stopped growing it. Policy fail.

The solution? Probably none as the top guy takes all the resources.

youareyou

Id donate if I knew all money was to air drop condoms.

I heard somene say in charity circles "we should be concerned aout concern"

oopsbritney

cjbh wrote: »

Let's be honest, the continent is still a bit of a $hithole.

How do we know our money isn't going straight to some dictator?

Why is the situation not improving?

Does it depend on the particular charity?

Yes, and ultimately who controls the spending. Countries whose governments support the likes of Mugabe and have backwards attitudes to AIDS shouldn't get a penny.
This is some of the nonsense that has to be dealt with.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-af-nigeria-child-witches,0,5276725.story

Mr Benevolent

Giving to a charity that does not provide worthwhile services in Ireland is frankly a waste of money. You want proof? Ok. First, the regulations. Charities are required to give a minimum of 5% of their income to charity. Second, the recipient countries. Nigeria admitted to simply stealing $100 billion over 30 years from charities and international foreign aid. Nobody knows where the money went, but suffice to say that plenty of champagne, caviar and private jets were bought with it. Third, the administration foulups. In Ethiopia, five charities purchased five different types of water pump for various villages. None of the parts were interchangeable and the pumps rapidly ground to a halt.

And that's just the start of it.

Degsy

jumpguy wrote: »

Some poor young fella in Nigeria depends on your donations to live

Oh i know him..he works the jacks in break for the border.

I don't give money to Africa. If my money went to either neutering the women or handing out condoms for the men, then I'd know my money was well spent and I'd donate.

What good is a new well or a cow when the population is sky rocketing. We can't do a thing to help when they won't help themselves.
Stop having children. It would help the continent more than we ever could.

hooradiation

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't give money to Africa. If my money went to either neutering the women or handing out condoms for the men, then I'd know my money was well spent and I'd donate.

What good is a new well or a cow when the population is sky rocketing. We can't do a thing to help when they won't help themselves.
Stop having children. It would help the continent more than we ever could.

So, if we neuter the poor then there will be no more poor people.

*slow clap*

Prof.Badass

themont85 wrote: »

What grinds my gears is people who fundraise money for 'their charity work' for maybe a once of two week stint in a poor country when the money you give is for their flights and they do fúck all over there. I've done some work in these places before and a lot of people just do it for their own experience to see poverty and maybe help a little (which is fair enough), but I reject paying for them to do this.

I attended a talk from some sort of enviromental charity and it got me thinking, what's our obsession with sending lots of white people to these places? Do we think the native people are incapable of running operations themselves? or is it some sort of guilt thing?

Surely it would be a better use of resources if these charities paid native people to run things (what with the flights, vaccines, training, finding a place to stay and all the administrative procedures that have to be done beforhand)?

I haven't really thought this through properly, so i'm not sure how strong this argument is, and it probably wouldn't hold as much for people spending long periods of time over there, but it might be worth thinking about.