Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Dollars For Change

In August and September of last year, my best friend Katie went to South Africa to volunteer for an organization that helps children in a small village called Kurland. She helped teach kindergarten children, and during her stay there, developed an idea to start a non profit organization. She worked with children who were underfeed and HIV positive, and for them she wanted to make a difference. Her organization, Dollars for Change, asks that every American donate one dollar in order to make a difference. If this were to occur, she explains that three hundred million dollars could be raised to help end world poverty. Most people in the world live off of less than one dollar a day. (You can look up her web site on myspace.com or Dollarsforchange.org). She rattled off several startling statistics that really made me think. First, the United States is one of the only Western nations who does not give 0.7 percent of their GNP to help end world poverty; a promise which we had made in 1975 during the G8 Summit. The 0.7 percent of country’s GNP goes to things like education, medicine, food, women’s rights ect. The money we do give only helps countries pay off current debt. World poverty encompasses 40 percent of the world population, and none of those people live in the United States. Therefore, her question and mine search for an answer as to why the U.S. does not do more? Where is world poverty on the agenda, and why can’t the U.S. live up to the amount of money other nations give to help the problem?

Although I am very compassionate and interested in Katie’s purpose, I have to wonder what will really make a difference regarding world poverty. It seems that so much of the money donated to countries like those in Africa are lost in translation, and so little of it actually makes it to the people who need it. So, what can be done? Does it start in the U.S.? And by this I mean that until our own poverty levels are lowered, will be people be willing to dish out more money to other countries? Or is it up to the government to stop spending so much on war and start spending those dollars to make a change elsewhere?

1 Comments:

Blogger Beth Ann said...

In response to dollars for change...I focus a good deal of my time studying human rights issues on a global level. Most of my classmates understand my tendencies towards these issues.

Throughout all of my time on this issue, I have come to the conclusion that NGO's, even those that keep 50% of the funds generated for operating costs is not necessarily bad. What is problematic, however, is when the other 50% of funds never reaches its destination, or fails to serve the real purpose for individuals in which it is intended.

So many of these fundraising, donor fund entities, fail to recognize the importance of prescriptive rather than reactionary international policy, which could actually serve people in a greater capacity than just giving them bread. International donors who are taken by pictures of emaciated children, would make a greater impact if they contacted agencies in the area first, to come up with a plan and do some research rather than just dumping money into failing social and political institutions of the state of these countries. Many of those countries wherein a siginificant amount of the population is truly 'hungry', also have had government disruptions, corruption, or are post war torn states who are reliant on exogenous actors to ameliorate said situations.

Everyone needs to work together on this particular issue if something concrete is to be done to alleviate hunger in the world.

10:22 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home