A Tale of Two Cultures-Charity-Problem Solving-And The Future of Social Entrepreneurship
A Tale of Two Cultures-Charity-Problem Solving-And The Future of Social Entrepreneurship
A Tale of Two Cultures-Charity-Problem Solving-And The Future of Social Entrepreneurship
DOI 10.1007/s10551-012-1412-5
Abstract Two cultures are at play in the field of social e-mail: [email protected]
entrepreneurship: an age-old culture of charity, and a more
contemporary culture of entrepreneurial problem solving.
These cultures permeate activities from resource providers
to front line operations. Both have roots in our psycho-
logical responses to the needs of others and are reinforced
by social norms. They can work hand-in-hand or they can
be at odds. Some of the icons of the social
entrepreneurship movement have spoken harshly about
charity, yet most of them rely to some degree, at least early
in their develop- ment process, on resources that are given
out of a chari- table impulse. The success of social
entrepreneurship requires an integration of values from
each of these cul- tures, in which the satisfactions of
giving are correlated with social benefits of rigorous
problem solving.
J. G. Dees (&)
Center for the Advancement of Social Entrepreneurship,
Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, 100 Fuqua Drive,
Box 90120, Durham, NC, USA
1
3
—Muhammad Yunus, founder of Grameen Bank and
2006 Nobel Peace Prize winner (Yunus 1999, p. 237).
1
3
32 J. G. Dees
2
followers to be generous with those in need. Even secular experimentation, and learning process, forming a kind of
philosophers, such as Confucius and Aristotle applauded ‘‘learning laboratory’’ (Dees 2009).
this kind of giving behavior as a virtue. Confucius included Each of these ‘‘cultures’’ appeals to strong human
charitable behavior as part of ren, one of his five cardinal impulses and each provides its satisfactions. Research indi-
virtues, often translated as a combination of ‘‘benevolence, cates that both the generous acts of charity (Aknin et al.
charity, and humanity.’’ In his Nichomachean Ethics, Aris- 2010, 2012; Harbaugh et al. 2007; Brooks 2008) and the
totle places it within the virtue of ‘‘generosity,’’ the will- challenges inherent in problem solving (Csikszentmihalyi
ingness to give with the right intention, at the right time, to 1990, 1996a,
the right recipients, which is the lead virtue concerned with b) contribute to meaningful, happy lives. Yet fusing the
wealth, the mean between stinginess and wastefulness. two sets of values is not as easy as it might seem. The
Charity is a virtue, consisting of selfless action for the culture of charity has a strong legacy in terms of the norms,
benefit of another, ideally a stranger. The term is derived legal structures, and language that shape behavior in the
from the Latin ‘‘caritas’’ which refers to ‘‘caring,’’ ‘‘com- social sector, a legacy that has helped many social
passion,’’ or ‘‘love.’’ The Christian parable of the Good entrepreneurs attract resources to their causes, but that has
Samaritan describes the paradigm case. It is a story in also inhibited the development and effectiveness of social
which a person (in this case from a despised ethnic group) entrepreneurs.
stops to help a traveler who has been injured and robbed,
after many others (including those from highly esteemed
groups) pass the traveler by. The story illustrates the Benefits of a Culture of Charity
intrinsic moral value of acting selflessly, out of compas-
sion. Thus, charity focuses on the actor’s caring motiva- The fact that most societies encourage some variation on
tions and willingness to sacrifice his or her interests. It charity or generosity toward others is no accident. Charity
makes no reference to the consequences of the act, other benefits both the actor and society.
than that the act is performed out of love or compassion. In Many of the arguments for charitable behavior focus on
fact, personal gain from the act dilutes its moral value, and the psychological or spiritual benefits to the charitable
raises questions about the purity of the motives. actor; though, ironically you only get them if you are not
By contrast, problem solving is a skill, rather than a seeking them, but simply seeking (unselfishly) to help
virtue. It can be applied toward good or ill. Even those who another. When you act with purity of heart, helping and
would do harm have problems to solve in getting their giving can lead to greater and perhaps unexpected
schemes to work. It is instrumental. Its value lies in what it personal happiness. Indi- viduals may not appreciate this
is used to achieve. Its moral goodness is judged by the fact without the nudge that they get from moral norms
results. Its excellence as a skill is judged by the usefulness encouraging and praising this behavior for its inherent
of the process in producing results or in producing worth. It is acclaimed as a vehicle for spiritual
knowledge that improves future efforts. Together the development—a means for expressing com- passion,
goodness of the results and excellence of methods are used demonstrating selflessness, and loosening attach- ments to
to judge a particular problem-solving approach. material goods. As sociologist Richard Sennett notes,
Social problem solving by private parties does not have ‘‘Caritas means becoming a good person through making
the deep philosophical or religious origins of charity. It gifts; the act of gift giving combats one’s own dis- position
was not nearly as visible as charity until the birth of the to sinfulness.’’ But gifts are only one expression; many
scientific and industrial age. At that point several thinkers, other acts of compassion (such as those of the Samaritan)
such as Paine and Condorcet, grew frustrated with serve the same purpose. These effects on the individual
charitable approaches to poverty and began to look for also make individuals more valuable to societies that need
more scientific and systematic solutions (Jones 2005). In a certain degree of altruism to operate effectively. In his
the UK in partic- ular, and then in the US, the book Wired for Culture, evolutionary biologist Mark
enlightenment spirit gave rise to professionalized Pagel, argues that many aspects of human culture,
philanthropy, formalized social work, and more systematic including altruistic practices such as charity, have devel-
aid programs. The term ‘‘scientific charity’’ emerged to oped because they have survival value for the societies in
describe this phenomenon (Himmelfarb 1991). This is which they are embedded (Pagel 2012). More specifically,
when the first tensions between the traditional prac- tices one role for moral values is to help us resist narrowly self-
of charity and those of scientific problem solving started to interested behaviors that do not serve the welfare of the
emerge. Social entrepreneurship is simply a more recent community. This is not the place to review all the
extension of this analytic problem-solving thrust. It simply intriguing efforts to explain the role of altruistic and
acknowledges the insight that entrepreneurial efforts can cooperative behaviors in human society (see e.g., Ridley
add value to this process by decentralizing the innovation, 1996; Hauser 2006). We know that narrow self interest can
A Tale of Two Cultures 32
3
be a strong force and crippling to societies, which require
cooperation and sacrifice on the part of individuals for
the
whole to thrive. Moral norms, such as those encouraging those who driven by compassion to venture where ‘‘rea-
charity, serve as a counterbalance. sonable’’ people would fear to tread, who act in apparently
We all know the important role charity can play during irrational ways, and the drive of caritas can take people
a time of crisis, emergency, or particularly pressing need. there. It may seem like a waste to rational problem solvers,
Charity also helps to make the societies more resilient and but sometimes it is those who are regarded by the main-
cohesive. Charitable responses to tragedies not only fill an stream as wasting their time who come up with the real
immediate need, but can strengthen social bonds and create breakthroughs, whether they are motivated by caritas or by
goodwill. If we reduce the responses of the social sector to the irrational optimism that commonly afflicts entrepre-
cold, scientific social problem solving, we will risk turning neurs (Sharot 2011).
all the helping functions over to professionals, which
James McKnight argues can debase rather than enrich our
shared sense of community (McKnight 1995). Tensions Between Charity and Problem Solving
By encouraging charity, societies draw on private
resources in a voluntary way, making those resources more Despite these benefits, charitable values can be in tension
productive for the common wealth. Since resources and with the problem solving values that animate much of
capabilities are not evenly distributed, it can be a net gain social entrepreneurship. Several of the practical challenges
to society when those with more share with those who have social entrepreneurs face can be traced to these tensions.
less. Economist, Joel Waldfogel, provocative author of
Scroogenomics, and critic of what he sees as wasteful Tension 1: Spontaneous Caritas Versus Reasoning
holiday gift giving, makes an exception. ‘‘Gifts from those
with plenty to those with little can increase society’s net For many people charity and analytic thinking do not mix.
satisfaction’’ (Waldfogel 2009, p. 120). His argument for Thinking can spoil the charitable act. Michel Roux, phi-
this is simple. A dollar or an item of value is generally lanthropist and founder of Crillon Importers, eloquently
worth more to the person who has fewer of them than to expressed the spirit of this idea when he said, ‘‘Don’t speak
someone who has plenty of them. Voluntary giving can about your giving and don’t think when you give. Just give
also ease the burden on the state. There are limits to the both with your means and with your heart. And give
ability and willingness of governments to tax wealth for spontaneously. Real charity can happen at any moment in
the purpose of addressing social issues. Moral systems that life’’ (Rosenfeld 1999, p. 110). Scholar Scott Cutler Sher-
encourage private giving of both resources and capabilities show even sees a contradiction in any effort to mix giving
provide a complementary means of mobilizing valuable and analysis, which according to his theory belong in dif-
resources. ferent realms of human behavior. In his indictment of the
More specifically to this paper, norms of charity create analytic, results-oriented, problem-solving philanthropic
pools of resources to support social entrepreneurs, many of practices, he says:
whom are also motivated by the same compassionate
impulses that drive charity in the first place. Social entre- The so-called new philanthropy thus operates by
preneurs are motivated to correct harms done by an unjust means of an impossible and ruinous combination of
equilibrium (Martin and Osberg 2007). Proponents of giving and working. In its practice, it displaces the
charity would point out that Yunus relied on charity to get possibility of more organized and effective means of
Grameen off the ground (taking outside funding for comforting the afflicted; and in its implicit theory, it
15 years before the Bank was self sufficient) and that he refuses to follow the gift to its limits by insisting that
has personally engaged in an act of charity through his even charity be judged by its (psychic and material)
work at Grameen Bank in which he did not take an equity returns (Shershow 2005, p. 134).
ownership or a large salary. Instead, he insisted that the Shershow is giving voice to a commonly held view that
poor own the Bank. He has in fact been critical of those in charity is about ‘‘giving,’’ and it is not authentic if there are
the microfinance world who would personally profit from expectations and calculations involved. Even the Wall
helping the poor (Yunus and Weber 2010, p. 13). Street Journal made a similar point when it used the
It is often deep caritas that drives extraordinary people headline ‘‘Strings Attached’’ (Conkey 2006) for a story
to take on apparently insoluble social problems or to work reporting on the rise of the ‘‘new’’ philanthropy that views
in areas that seem hopeless. In some cases, these ‘‘fools’’ donations as ‘‘investments’’ looking for a ‘‘social return.’’
emerge with innovations that make an unexpected differ- A gift begins to look more like a contract when strings are
ence. Funded by donors who are driven by passion more attached.
than reason, they go where purely scientific problem The non-analytic, no strings-attached character is part of
solvers, playing the odds, would not go. The world needs the beauty and appeal of charitable acts. Did the Good
1
3
Samaritan calculate the social return before helping the moved ‘‘to labor for the good of others, but because of lack
injured traveler? No, he simply acted spontaneously, out of of deliberation and thoughtfulness, be quite ignorant of
compassion. Any calculation would have demeaned the what their good really is, and do a great deal of harm’’
act. (Dewey 1908, pp. 271–272). Not surprisingly, proponents
As a result of this bias against analysis, passion can of problem solving feel the need to write primers per-
dominate reason in charitable activity. Many of the suading nonprofit charitable organizations to make a
resources that flow into charitable causes do so without ‘‘Leap of Reason’’ (Morino 2011) and persuading high net-
serious deliberation, due diligence, assessment, strategy, or worth individuals about the need to ‘‘Give Smart’’ (Tierney
commitment to learning. Charitable organizations can act and Fleishman 2011). These are titles of two of the
out of compassion without worrying about whether they currently popular books in the field. The ideas are linked. It
are deploying resources efficiently and effectively. Why is hard to ‘‘give smart’’ if the organizations to which you
should a charitable actor conduct due diligence? Charitable give are content with having the right intentions—
virtue does not require it. It requires only the right moti- displaying cari- tas, and not using reason to manage to
vation, ‘‘caritas.’’ outcomes.
When this becomes a norm for the social sector, it can As Morino (2011) argues, in an era of government
undermine rigor and effectiveness. Highly successful scarcity, private actors must be more disciplined about how
business people often leave behind their business disci- they use their scarce resources and capabilities to address
pline, savvy, and demands for results when they sit on social needs if they are to help societies make headway
nonprofit boards (Bowen 1994). They seem to think these against pressing social problems. Acts of heartfelt caritas,
traits are not appropriate in this setting. Mario Morino, a as beautiful as they might be, will not do the job.
philanthropist and former entrepreneur who is an exception
to this rule, observes, ‘‘For the entire sixteen years I have Tension 2: Sacrifice Versus Investment
been working fulltime in the social sector, a problem has
been gnawing at me, sometimes literally keeping me up at The culture of charity views sacrifice as a means of dem-
night. Here’s the problem in a nutshell: We don’t manage onstrating that your caritas is genuine. This has resulted in
to outcomes, thus greatly diminishing our collective pressure for misguided frugality that can undermine
impact’’ (Morino 2011, p. 1). Because the norms of charity serious problem-solving efforts. While pressure to
permeate this sector, organizations have only needed to economize is generally a good thing, this norm has
show charitable intent and tell good stories to motivate inhibited investments in valuable capacity building and
caritas in board members, donors, and staff, so that they made it difficult to attract and retain problem-solving
survive and even thrive, regardless of their impact. Until talent.
recently, few charitable organizations tracked outcome To deal with complex social problems effectively,
measures tied to their missions and strategies (Sawhill and organizations need to invest in building organizational
Williamson 2001). Without these measures, it is hard to capabilities through research and development, information
learn what is working or how to improve. Without a strong systems, training, and marketing. The emphasis on
incentive, such as placing the moral value on outcomes sacrifice deters these, even when they are necessary to
rather than purity of motivations, the hard work involved in improve performance. They are seen as ‘‘overhead,’’ an
measuring impact will not be done. extrava- gance. Because of the emphasis on sacrifice, the
This problem even exists at the level of sophisticated most common performance measure for nonprofits (until
institutional giving. Economist Abhijit Banerjee uses the recently) was the ratio of overhead expenses to total
term ‘‘lazy giving’’ to describe the effects that the culture expenses: the lower this ratio, the better. Yet, this measure
of charity has had on norms of international aid. As he puts has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the organization
it, ‘‘The culture of aid-giving evolved from the idea that in achieving its social mission or even its cost-
giving is good and the more money the better…and effectiveness relative to its impact.
therefore—and here comes the logical leap—one need not In business, underinvestment in R&D, marketing, sys-
think too hard about how the money is spent’’ (Banerjee
tems development, and the like would be a bad thing.
2007, pp. 23–24). This happens despite all the economists
Being lean is good, but only as long as it is guided by the
employed by aid agencies.
requirements of effective performance, now and in the
Lack of disciplined analytic thinking can lead to mis-
future. Lack of investment in systems to improve effec-
guided action, not just wasted money. American pragmatist
tiveness, or in research and new program development
philosopher John Dewey, writing around the time that
should be red flags, not positives, even if these activities
professional philanthropy was getting off the ground,
are technically ‘‘overhead.’’ The overhead ratio might
pointed out that a person (or an organization) may be
make sense if all an organization did was pass along alms
to the poor, but problem solving requires a different cost
structure.
The norm of sacrifice and the false frugality it perpet- The norm of sacrifice also has a less direct but
uates also have harmful effects on talent flows into and out important effect of minimizing discipline and perpetuating
of the sector. Though a vow of poverty may not be poor performance. It is very difficult to be critical of those
required to work on social issues, the culture of charity still making great sacrifices. Board members who would be
seems to require those who would ‘‘do good’’ to make harsh with a for-profit CEO who performed poorly, often
sacrifices in the form of accepting modest (or low) wages bite their tongue when dealing with an underpaid, yet
and slim benefits. It honors those who make great personal under-performing, nonprofit executive director. If the per-
and financial sacrifices, and raises questions about the son shows caritas and sacrifice, weak results are often
morals of those who do not. overlooked. It is notoriously difficult for managers in a
This leads to an intriguing paradox. Those of us who social sector organization to fire a staff member for poor
live in capitalist societies are content for business entre- performance, or give a harsh performance review, as long
preneurs to make their fortunes, even with trivial products, as that person demonstrates fidelity to the cause and makes
as long as the products are not harmful. In a classic busi- sacrifices. It seems ungrateful for the ‘‘gift’’ of time and
ness school entrepreneurship case Robert Reiss, an entre- energy this person has given to be harshly critical. In the
preneur who created a TV-Guide trivia game, made well US, we have a saying: ‘‘Do not look a gift horse in the
over $1 million in two years, and then closed out the game mouth.’’ This means do not check its teeth to see how old
as interest subsided (Reiss 2000, pp. 281–315). Did this or sick it might be. Just as gifts are to be given without
offend anyone? Certainly not, it was seen as a clever strings, recipients are to accept them gratefully without
entrepreneurial success. He produced a fun game and good questions. It is common to be ‘‘charitable’’ with under-
returns for all involved, including himself. However, if he performing employees. As a result, organizations are often
had made this kind of money developing an exceptionally not as effective as they could be.
effective educational program for children in homeless It is striking that no one would suggest that Goldman
shelters, the reaction would have been totally different. The Sachs, Infosys, or Unilever be led by volunteers, or by
public would have been appalled, regardless of how many retirees from another sector looking for a ‘‘second act.’’
lives he improved. This points to the paradox. We are Too much is at stake. Yet these ideas are commonplace
happier for people to be rewarded financially for a com- ideas in the social sector, and they trivialize the challenges
mercial success (even if it is of little lasting social value) of serious social problem solving. It is as if working in this
than we are for those who make the most important, last- sector is simply an act of kindness and generosity, not a
ing, and valuable contributions to society. serious challenge requiring deep expertise. When the goal
I do not want to make light of the ethical issues related is innovative, cost-effective problem solving with large-
to profiting from the poor, or of the serious incentive scale impact, serious talent, and deep expertise are needed.
problems that can arise in social ventures that are too profit It is much more demanding than business.
driven or that pay excessive compensation not tied in any
way to social performance. The pressure on salaries and Tension 3: Giving Versus Markets
benefits serves a valuable purpose of screening potential
leaders and staff members for their commitment to the The culture of charity also is uncomfortable with com-
cause. It may also help solve some incentive problems mercial or business-like approaches to social problems.
associated with the difficulties of measuring social per- Market-based solutions are problematic. Charging for a
formance in clear and timely ways. Low salaries can also service undermines the opportunity to express the pure
serve to express an organization’s values, its solidarity with caritas through a gift. Yet, when you charge the poor for a
its clients. Nonetheless, expectations of sacrifice can make valuable product or service, they become customers,
it difficult to attract and retain the talent needed to achieve empowered to complain, instead of being passive, grateful
significant social impact at scale. recipients of charity. They also feel less demeaned or
Solving social problems is difficult work, requiring awkward about having to accept charity. Using some
skills comparable to, perhaps even greater than, those in market-based methods may also lead to a more sustainable
demand in the business world. Searching for people willing solutions and organizations. Yet, according to the culture
and able to accept modest or low salaries imposes costs on of charity, giving is superior.
social entrepreneurs, as does the turnover when people Social entrepreneurs would be thrilled to craft a solution
leave because their families and financial needs have to a social problem that minimizes or eliminates the need
grown, and they can no longer afford to stay with the for giving. Many of them aim for financially sustainable
organization. This is one of the barriers to scaling effective and socially effective organizations. These solutions are
social innovations—the difficulty of attracting and retain- viewed as superior because they free up philanthropic
ing sufficient affordable and skilled talent. resources for use where they will do the most good.
Completely eliminating dependence on gifts is rare, but it He argues further, ‘‘that the increasing confusion in the
can be done. Grameen Bank in Bangladesh became inde- contemporary American law of charity stems from the fact
pendent of any outside concessionary funding, but it took that our society has moved and is continuing to move
fifteen years. This creates a tension between the ideals of toward a results-oriented, quasi-commercial, social engi-
charity and those of entrepreneurial problem solvers neer’s conception of charity, while our law has continued
looking for sustainable solutions. to encourage, and often insist upon, a compassionate
The problem shows up even in the legal system. Prof- brand…’’ (Kelley 2005, p. 2439). This makes it hard for
itable or self-sustaining social ventures do not leave room social entrepreneurs who would prefer to use commercial
for traditional caritas once they reach their financial goals, methods in their efforts. The culture of charity is still
but they often require it along the way, especially early on embedded deeply in the laws in many countries.
as the concept is tested, business model refined, and certain
benchmarks reached. Many never reach full sustainability, Tension 4: Relieving Suffering Versus Solving
always requiring some subsidy, and perhaps giving away Problems
some of their products or services to the most needy. As a
result, social entrepreneurs, including those who want to In common practice, charity tends to be a response to
find sustainable, market-based solutions, often adopt a visible suffering, as in the case of the Good Samaritan.
nonprofit legal form or some kind of hybrid structure, This kind of help is surely of value, but what if there is a
mixing nonprofit and for-profit elements. This poses a pattern of many travelers getting robbed in this location?
problem because the laws around nonprofit organizations Helping one who is already injured does not do much for
in most countries are designed for ‘‘charities’’ that are alle- the next one or the next one hundred. Would not it be even
viating suffering, not building problem-solving business better for society to explore ways to reduce the risk of
ventures. future robberies? From a rational point of view, prevention
deserves even more moral praise than helping one victim,
One of the largest NGOs in the world, the Bangladesh
but in the culture of charity, it is the immediate act of
Rural Advancement Committee provides education,
caritas that is most praiseworthy. This morality encourages
healthcare, and economic development opportunities
people to direct action and resources to visible suffering
throughout Bangladesh (and now in several other
rather than underlying problems. Interestingly, it fits our
countries), and is about 80 % self- sustaining. Yet, BRAC
visceral reactions.
had to go to the Bangladesh Supreme Court to defend the
social ventures that allow it to operate without begging for Visible suffering generates a strong sense of empathy
more charitable funds. In a private con- versation, Dr. and compassion (Trout 2009). And the emotional satis-
Fazel Abhed, founder of BRAC, told the author that BRAC faction of providing relief from suffering can be very
had to use the precedent of Oxford University Press (a strong and immediate. For this reason, the outpouring of
money-making operation of Oxford University) to defend support after disasters is often dramatic. In the wake of the
BRAC’s use of business ventures. Nonprofit law is just not Pacific tsunami of 2005, many organizations had more
accustomed to the idea that good might be done (even funds than they could immediately put to use. At least one
more) effectively through market-based approaches, lever- prominent agency, Doctors Without Borders, turned away
aging charitable contributions with earned income. donors.
However, the emotional satisfaction is not so palpable in
The law in the U. S., which one might think would be
the case of problem solving or prevention efforts—even
very progressive on this matter, is conflicted and confused.
when they save lives and are more cost effective than
As legal scholar Thomas Kelley notes,
relief. Consider GeoHazards International, whose mission
For several hundred years, our culture has developed is to ‘‘reduce loss of life and suffering around the world in
a vibrant charitable tradition without ever agreeing as communities most vulnerable to geologic hazards.’’ It must
a matter of culture or law on what ‘‘charity’’ means. raise funds before the fact of an earthquake. Even if an
In our tradition, and in our contemporary culture, earthquake hits a city in which GeoHazards successfully
charity is a compassionate act of aiding the poor, of helped develop a plan that saved thousands of lives, these
distributing alms to the needy, and spooning soup to ‘‘saved’’ lives do not have specific names or stories—
the hungry. At the same time, it is a tool for social unlike those pulled from the rubble after the fact. Caritas
engineering and for efficiently producing socially responds to names and faces, not counterfactual statistics.
beneficial results that will lighten the burdens on our You will not find GeoHazards flooded with so much
government. These are two very different concep- money they have to turn it away as a result of saving so
tions of charity, but the legal doctrines that govern many people from death and injury, though surely
charity in the United States do not clearly distinguish preventing injuries, deaths, and property loss is better than
between them (Kelley 2005, p. 2439). treating the
injured, feeding the homeless, and recovering the dead economists, Small et al. (2007). Unfortunately, not all
afterward. This points to another paradox: We are willing effective problem-solving organizations have been able to
to give more to those who treat suffering after the fact than repackage their value propositions in this way.
to those who prevent it or reduce it beforehand. This bias toward relieving suffering can also affect the
To be sure, effective prevention, disaster mitigation, and organizations donors support, showing up as a perverse
problem solving can be quite satisfying to those who bias toward helping organizations because they are
engage in it, but the satisfaction is more delayed and muted struggling. Need, framed in the right way, pulls at the
than it is with immediate charitable relief. The story of heartstrings. Effective organizations that have been
many travelers who passed safely because of an innovative successful in building their funding bases have reported
protection program is not nearly as moving as the story of donors or grant makers turning them away because they are
the injured one helped by a Samaritan. not sufficiently ‘‘needy.’’ Yet, their financial strength may
Because charitable action is driven by the strength of well indicate that they are well managed and could put the
emotive responses, it is susceptible to biases. Critics have money to better use than needier organizations that may be
long worried more about charity not extending to people needy because they are poorly run. Nonetheless, donors are
who are distant or foreign. The modern media have often moved by the plight of needy organizations, and get
shortened those distances, but the general problem charitable satisfaction from helping to ‘‘save’’ them. This
remains. As Frans de Waal, a leading primatologist, points almost guarantees that poorly performing organizations
out in his book The Age of Empathy, ‘‘Empathy builds on will enjoy longer lives and attract more resources than is
identifi- ability, proximity, similarity, and familiarity, optimal for society.
which is entirely logical given that it evolved to promote
in-group cooperation’’ (de Waal 2009, p. 221). Adam Tension 5: Caring for People Versus Empowering
Smith even suggested that poverty alone was not very Them
moving to many people. ‘‘The mere want of fortune, mere
poverty, excites little compassion. Its complaints are too Charity is a complicated thing to do well. It can backfire in
apt to be the objects rather of contempt than of fellow- several ways, causing more harm than good. It has inher-
feeling. We despise the beggar…’’ (Smith 1759, p. 242). ently perverse incentives of keeping the problems it
Another blind spot for emotion-driven charity is future addresses alive so that future generations can continue to
generations. It takes education, as well as acts of will, exercise this virtue. This can lead to a ‘‘charity industry’’
imagination, and reason to extend caritas beyond those that has a vested interest in problems remaining unsolved.
currently living. Consider longer term environmental Charity can also be performed in ways that have unin-
issues. Harvard psy- chologist Daniel Gilbert has argued tended detrimental effects on the recipients.
that our brains are not wired to detect and respond to long- Successful problem solving, in the form of eliminating
term threats. If we have trouble imagining and feeling poverty, for instance, could lead to depriving peoples of
these threats even with opportunities to display their charity. Gertrude Himmelfarb
regard to our own happiness (Gilbert 2006), we are even cites an example of a wealthy patron in late Victorian
less likely to feel compassion for those faceless future England who laments that if poverty were cured, ‘‘the rich
generations who are threatened. Caritas is an imperfect tool would have no one upon whom to exercise their faculty of
even for addressing suffering, particularly suffering that is benevolence’’ (Himmelfarb 1991, p. 198). Of course, few
not visible, present, or involving a sympathetic party. of the benevolent rich would openly embrace this view, but
Interestingly, some problem-solving organizations have you have to wonder whether it could play out uncon-
recognized these biases and designed their marketing sciously and passively. American philosopher, John Dewey
accordingly. Save the Children is a powerful example of an echoed this concern, warning, ‘‘Underlying complacency
organization that has found a way to appeal to common with respect to social ills grows up because they afford an
triggers for caritas while directing the funds toward prob- opportunity of developing and displaying the finest vir-
lem-solving strategies. Donors ‘‘sponsor’’ individual poor tues’’ (Dewey 1908, p. 348). This was part of what
children. Poor children tend to evoke empathy, even when troubled self-confessed ‘‘contrarian’’ Christopher Hitchens
they are foreign. Donors get a picture and letters from the who argued that Mother Teresa’s charity was not about
child they ‘‘sponsor,’’ but their money does not go to the helping people move out of poverty. He cited her
child. It goes to projects in the child’s community that help comment: ‘‘I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept
the child in some way. Community problem solving is not their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the
as moving to charitable donors, so the children are used. world is being much helped by the suffering of poor
This technique of using identifiable victims and their suf- people’’ (Hit- chens 1995, p. 11). He became convinced
fering has been tested and verified by behavioral experi- that this attitude was reflected in the practices of her
ments conducted by some prominent behavioral organizations, helping the poor to accept their lot.
This issue has caused some to worry about a ‘‘poverty giver. Anthropologist Marcel Mauss who concludes his
industry’’ that has a vested interest in perpetuating the
problems. Writing around the same time as Dewey, just as
‘‘scientific charity’’ was getting off the ground, renowned
economist Alfred Marshall commented, ‘‘I regard poverty
as a passing evil in the progress of man; and I should not
like any [poverty relieving] institution started which did
not contain in itself the causes which would make it shrivel
up, as the causes of poverty itself shriveled up’’ (Marshall
1893). The appeal of Marshall’s principle is clear, but its
effects could be perverse. Few institutions want to shrivel
up. If they were designed as Marshall requires, the leaders
would have an incentive not to address the causes of
poverty. What is more likely to happen is that many
organizations will show some ‘‘progress,’’ but few will
really solve the problems they are attacking. If we want the
organizations to shrivel, we need to find a way to reward
them and their leaders for their success and for the
shriveling.
By contrast, a culture of problem solving would prefer
organizational structures that thrive on success—ones in
which true progress opens more opportunities for the
organization to use its skills. One example would be a
micro-finance organization that follows successful bor-
rowers out of poverty and starts offering more
sophisticated (and profitable) products to meet their
changing needs. Another would be health care service for
the poor that can expand into other offerings (including
health insurance, management of chronic conditions, etc.)
after it success- fully addresses their most basic health
needs. The key is to build organizations so that solving the
social problem opens new opportunities for more problem
solving.
Even if charitable givers and relief organizations do not
unintentionally perpetuate the problems they are address-
ing, they may inadvertently exacerbate problems or create
other problems by their very acts of kindness. Charity can
be counterproductive, hurting or demeaning those it was
intended to serve, robbing them of dignity or making them
dependent in unhealthy ways. This has been evident in the
world of international aid, and forms the basis of many of
the criticisms of aid (e.g., Ellerman 2005; Hubbard and
Duggan 2009; Moyo 2009). Writing in the New York
Times Sunday Magazine, Ian Fisher provides a powerful
example. He quotes a rebel leader referring to massive
food relief in southern Sudan in the early 1990s as saying,
‘‘The people of the area are great farmers, but because
there is this relief food, they did not farm for three years. I
could see the difficulty. It was spoiling people. They just
sleep and have food. It is very bad’’ (Fisher 2001, p. 74).
This is just one example, but it illustrates how well-
intentioned charitable acts can have unintended harmful
consequences.
Charity can psychologically harm both receiver and
classic work The Gift by commenting, ‘‘The
unreciprocated gift still makes the person who has
accepted it inferior, particularly when it has been accepted
with no thought of returning it…Charity is still wounding
for him who has accepted it, and the whole tendency of
our morality is to strive to do away with the unconscious
and injurious patronage of the rich almsgiver’’ (Mauss
1950, pp. 83–84). Interestingly, even Christian scholars,
Steve Corbett and Brian Fikkert make a similar point in
their book When Helping Hurts, and they extend it,
arguing that it also harms the giver by creating a false
sense of superiority. As they put it, ‘‘The way we act
toward the economically poor often communicates—
albeit unintentionally—that we are superior and they are
inferior. In the process, we hurt the poor and ourselves’’
(Corbett and Fikkert 2009, p. 65). They refer to charitable
givers as having a ‘‘god complex.’’ Political philosopher
Michael Walzer warned of the same double-edged harm
when he commented, ‘‘Private charity breeds personal
dependence, and then it breeds familiar vices of
dependence: deference, passivity, and humility on the
one hand; arrogance on the other’’ (Walzer 1983,
p. 92). One prominent fraternal lodge leader distinguished
mutual aid from charity in a speech to the 1901 National
Fraternal Congress, saying mutual aid is ‘‘absolutely dis-
tinct from charity or philanthropy. It is liberalizing, self-
sustaining, elevating, gives mutual rights, and preserves
independence of character.’’ While charity ‘‘signifies con-
descension, a position of superiority on the part of the
organization, and of dependency on the part of the reci-
pient’’ (Beito 2000, p. 58).
Charity can endanger self-esteem. In a thorough and
classic review of literature on recipients’ reactions to aid,
Jeffrey Fisher and his colleagues concluded that the best
model for understanding responses was one that focused
on threats to self-esteem (Fisher et al. 1982). American
phi- losopher Henry David Thoreau speaks for many
when he says, ‘‘If I knew for a certainty that a man was
coming to my house with the conscious design of doing
me good, I should run for my life…’’ (Thoreau 1852, p.
50). It also explains why friends and family who need
money, find it uncomfortable to ask for help and prefer to
call it a ‘‘loan’’ even if both parties understand it will
probably not be repaid. Taking a loan is more dignified
than taking charity. Garret Keizer, in a thought-provoking
book on the chal- lenges of helping others, brings this
home with a strange
comment that gets at the issue of dignity when he notes: