Why You Probably Won’t Give to Haiti

1.22.10

In the wake of the recent disaster in Haiti, many Americans are compelled to give. The Red Cross, among hundreds of other organizations, are raising funds to help the Haitians in their time of need. But economists would tell us, we probably haven’t given to those organizations. Economists also tell us that we probably won’t.

The first thing to understand about our charitable impulses is that they’re one of the least rational facets of our economic being. Not only is giving away money for no obvious benefit irrational, but the way we give away money is extremely strange — and that strangeness is where we can glean insight into our true motives.

Take, for instance, the problem of bigness. The bigger the problem, generally speaking, the more money is needed to solve it. Unfortunately, the more overwhelming a problem is, the more abstract it is, the more our brains shut down.

“What really moves people is making an emotional connection,” Slovic said. “The numbers not only don’t convey feeling, they actually get in the way of feeling.” While what’s been called “psychic numbing” can have beneficial effects — the term was coined to describe how rescue workers turned off their emotions to deal with the horrific aftermath of the Hiroshima bombing, and relief workers are presumably operating off of the same thing in Haiti today — it also gets in the way of people watching from abroad reacting compassionately.

By necessity, our well of compassion is far from bottomless. The current view is that altruism, to the extent it exists in any pure form in the human animal, is an evolutionary adaptation to bind families and small communities. And, as ancient as these preferences may be, our contemporary giving habits seem to reflect little change. Roughly 80% of Americans’ giving, according to the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, is focused on their local communities and churches. In 2004, according to a report by the Center, international aid received just 1% of household giving; tsunami relief got another 2% of the pie that year.

Some interesting stuff here. I think we can all understand the idea of giving to causes that are close at hand. I guess we fail to continue giving from that point.

One concept that seems missing from the “problem too big to give” argument, is effectiveness. To look at the current devastation in Haiti, one has to ask themselves, how can I help? More so, in the name of being a good steward, how can I help effectively? Does giving to the Red Cross actually accomplish that goal? I would like to think so. But I don’t know that. I mean no disrespect to the Red Cross. The same could be said of any large, national charity. In a world of 20/20 Specials and Televangelists, there is a certain level of doubt that exists.

As far as the statistic that 80% of charitable giving is local, it doesn’t surprise me. If you were to examine my checkbook, it would be even more locally focused. The reason being, I give to the nations through my local church. I support the work throughout the world, by tithing & giving locally. I think the article’s statistic may be misleading. I would assume that the same could be said of many protestants.

Have you given to Haiti? Why or why not?