Portfolios of the Poor highlights the need to focus on cash flows of the poor, rather than their assets, because that is how the poor see it. That makes sense. At the most basic level, you need cash—not an equity line—to get food. We chafes against the thought of paying for a savings program; discipline or education should be enough, we intuit. Or browbeating. Of course, I take something like a bank account for granted.
I think this is like Paul Farmer complicating the distinction between treatment and prevention. Savings is like prevention: we don't need fancy and expensive drugs (or financial tools) if we can convince people to adopt habits that will keep them from contracting AIDS (or debts) in the first place. We should make some ecological interventions, which we can feel good about. Dig a well, provide condoms, make posters (give to Kiva). But I've missed a basic dignity/autonomy component to providing treatment (or financial services, even if I think the ledgers shows they're treading water). Treatment and cash-flow-oriented microfinance acknowledge the dignity, rights, expectations, humanity of the poor, and allow them more space for hope in the present, rather than the future.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Friday, September 25, 2009
Friday, April 17, 2009
Celebration Guns
There's been much ado about the operation that killed three Somali pirates and captured a fourth in the liberation of Captain Richard Phillips. Let me say that I know nothing about military operations, or the situation at hand, and it's hard to say what the right way to go about the situation would have been for whoever was in charge of liaising with the pirates. Certainly the skills of the Seals are awesome. That said, I'm rather disappointed that this is being hailed as such a tremendous success. Three young Somalis are dead. That is not a good outcome. Three out of five dead people is better than five out of five dead people—that's still three dead young men.
One detail seems to have escaped commentary, however: the Maersk Alabama was a US-flagged aid ship with an all-American crew. Why is that significant? Well, apparently, registering a ship under the US flag is not the cheapest way to go. Have you ever been on a cruise? Noticed it was flying the Panamanian flag? Noticed that none of the staff was American? That's because it's cheaper and more convenient for the ship's operators. Reports say the MA was carrying food aid for the WFP. One would think that the WFP would be interested in the lowest cost option—I assume, not a US-flagged vessel and an an expensive American crew. But of course, the United States is the only country that donates to the WFP in-kind. American food aid must be made on American farms, packaged in American facilities, and shipped on American carriers. What's the problem, it's our food aid? We can do what we want—the WFP should be thankful for whatever they can get! Well, the problem is that that's all very expensive, and if we simply gave the money we pay our farmers to the WFP, they would be able to provide much more food for those affected, with more flexibility, from local sources and for local tastes. The sickest part of all this is that American food aid represents another subsidy to American farmers, which distorts global markets to the advantage of the rich at the expense of farmers in poor countries, like say, Somalia (not that one could probably do much farming there now anyway).
Anyway, freedom should always be celebrated. I'm glad Captain Phillips and the rest of his crew is safe, and Captain Phillips' selflessness should be praised. Piracy and stealing is bad. But on a geopolitical scale, let's be clear about who here the beleaguered constituency is here.
One detail seems to have escaped commentary, however: the Maersk Alabama was a US-flagged aid ship with an all-American crew. Why is that significant? Well, apparently, registering a ship under the US flag is not the cheapest way to go. Have you ever been on a cruise? Noticed it was flying the Panamanian flag? Noticed that none of the staff was American? That's because it's cheaper and more convenient for the ship's operators. Reports say the MA was carrying food aid for the WFP. One would think that the WFP would be interested in the lowest cost option—I assume, not a US-flagged vessel and an an expensive American crew. But of course, the United States is the only country that donates to the WFP in-kind. American food aid must be made on American farms, packaged in American facilities, and shipped on American carriers. What's the problem, it's our food aid? We can do what we want—the WFP should be thankful for whatever they can get! Well, the problem is that that's all very expensive, and if we simply gave the money we pay our farmers to the WFP, they would be able to provide much more food for those affected, with more flexibility, from local sources and for local tastes. The sickest part of all this is that American food aid represents another subsidy to American farmers, which distorts global markets to the advantage of the rich at the expense of farmers in poor countries, like say, Somalia (not that one could probably do much farming there now anyway).
Anyway, freedom should always be celebrated. I'm glad Captain Phillips and the rest of his crew is safe, and Captain Phillips' selflessness should be praised. Piracy and stealing is bad. But on a geopolitical scale, let's be clear about who here the beleaguered constituency is here.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)