Is this "catch-up principle" how charity fits into an economy? Granted, giving a cow is different than sending money. Send a Cow collects charitable donations a gives out cows which allow a village or small community to sustain healthier living. But what about just giving money? Of course there are sensible reasons not too - the most obvious being: money can go in so many directions... so many useless and unproductive directions.
CNN's website has a posted article about the top corporate donors to third world nation Haiti. The top 8 organizations that have given to Haiti so far have been:
- Teva Pharmaceuticals (the world's largest maker of generic drugs),
- Jefferies & Co.,
- Becton,
- Dickinson and Co.,
- Carnival (Cruise Lines),
- General Electric,
- Deutsche Bank AG,
- Abbott Labs (a Chicago-based pharmaceutical company),
- Digicel (a mobile telecom provider in the Caribbean and Central America)
The contributions made by these companies have been ranked by their monetary value, though money is not what they provided.
When a country is in need of assistance, money is not the best thing to give them. To be stable in any way, even economically, a community has to have a sustainable way of, not only surviving, but as mentioned in class today, providing its members choices. Better-off countries should provide assistance in the form of goods and/or services. I think sometimes, people forget that the most important things aren't measured by money, and can't be. Man-power, for instance, or materials for homes or a school. I apologize if this seems rant-ish, but I'm still trying to grasp myself, how we can attempt to predict economic trends without taking into account a human factor.
I think its great that a generic drug company is listed first, because the people of Haiti need medicine more than anything right now (if they don't survive medical complications from the disaster then nothing else will matter). Also, I wonder what Carnival Cruises has donated? Have they used boats to evacuate perhaps? I just don't see what they may have donated otherwise...
ReplyDeletei think that it is very hard to predict trends with out accounting a human factor. They must just assume that things will be affected or sway different ways because you cant be sure what humans will do.
ReplyDeleteOriginally I may have argued that charity doesn't really have a place with purely economic values. If you just think in terms of profits, giving up something for free or even paying for someone else to get something does not seem very rational. You decrease your own gains while increasing those of another. However, from what I saw in class on Thursday, you can improve your own welfare through charity--increasing things like trade and investment by helping someone else. Therefore, I do agree that the "catch-up" principle helps to bring charity (which is generally a more moral decision) into economics. I think that this is great encouragement for people and companies to participate in charitable acts like Send a Cow or Heifer International.
ReplyDeleteThe concept of "development economics" really interests me, particularly how charity, foreign aid, and micro-lending affect the developing world. I am unfortunately completely unversed on the specifics, but, owing to my political views, I do have some ideas on the matter.
ReplyDeleteThe main question the charity videos brought to mind was this: if a community well only costs $1,000, why do we still need charitable donations to cover them? I personally believe that the physical wellbeing of a community is vital for its economic development; a person cannot seek education or business opportunities when they or those around them are unwell. There is also the opportunity cost of seeking out distant water on foot that greatly impedes a community's capability to grow. An economy is only as strong as the people it is composed of. After 50 years of economic aid, why haven't we and the other countries of the first world ensured that each community have better access to something as basic as water?
To respond more directly to the article, I'm pleased that these companies have provided aid, regardless of their reasoning. Especially after such a disaster, having a little is a lot more than having nothing. On the one hand I hope that other nations and corporations play a big part in recovery, but I fear that now is the perfect time for them to exploit the hard times and influence the government of Haiti to be more favorable to their interests.
I think it's fantastic that so many large companies are featured on this list. Even though they themselves may be on the financial rocks because of the economy, the fact that they are still able to donate to such a worthy cause is admirable. A,E
ReplyDeleteDevelopment Economics has been the most exciting topic for me thus far. Economics has so much to do with profit and how to increase monetary value and gain that we forget the humanitarian side of economics. I think that it is totally awesome that pharmaceutical companies are giving so much because that is what the people of Haiti need most. I think Corinne you are right on point when you say that government should be giving goods and/ services that will enhance and build impoverished communities. If we want to build economies of developing nations lets first start by making sure they have fresh water and proper nutrition.
ReplyDeleteThe donation to Haiti is quite similar to the "send a cow" project. I agree that financial assistance is not the best way to help them. The goods and services these companies donated will provide huge benefit for people in need.
ReplyDeleteAlice brings up a good point: the fact that so many large companies are listed is truly great! I do not think that there is a company who has not been affected by the current state of our economy, and the fact that people are still willing to help others out, really helps to promote a sense of community and hope.
ReplyDelete