Donating shoes and other aid fads
Posted on September 28, 2009 at 9:46 am
Just like everything else, aid goes through fads. One of the current fads is donating shoes to people in developing countries. Everywhere I look there’s a shoe program. Bins for donated shoes are placed just inside the door of shoe stores, there’s a phone commercial featuring a shoe company that gives away a pair of shoes for every pair they sell (I’d be interested to know if they donate their own product or if they purchase shoes locally to donate, it makes a difference), and just this week someone taped plastic bags onto all the the porches in my neighborhood with a note asking for donated shoes to send to Africa.
Now I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure they sell shoes in Africa. In fact, I would challenge my well traveled readers to name a country they’ve visited that didn’t have shoes for sell. Just because you visited a village where people weren’t wearing shoes doesn’t mean that the solution is to take up a collection of shoes to donate. In fact it’s often one of the worst solutions to the problem, but it’s common because it’s a fad that pleases donors, and therefore gets resources and funding.
Is the reason people are not wearing shoes clearly understood?
There could be numerous reasons why people aren’t wearing shoes. To understand the best solution to a problem, there’s needs to be a clear understanding of the problem itself. Some possible reasons why people don’t wear shoes could include:
- In that culture children traditionally do not wear shoes except to school and church
- Shoes are not a priority. In fact they’ve received donated shoes in the past but have sold them almost immediately to buy what they consider to be more important.
- They do not own shoes because of their scarcity, there are no local shoe manufactures and they have to be shipped in from far away – perhaps the solution is to train local people in shoemaking.
- The people do not wear shoes because they cannot afford to buy them, however they would wear shoes if they had them – perhaps the solution is to help them purchase shoes in the local market place.
These are different root causes each with a different solution. Once the problem is clearly understood then it is time to explore – with significant input from the aid recipients – the various solutions to the problem. These solutions should take into account the impact that the aid project could have on the local economy, culture, health, environment, etc…
Potential impacts of donated shoes on the local economy
Whenever you ship goods into a country you are essentially undercutting the local market by giving away something that local people are producing and selling. This might not seem significant because the aid recipients cannot afford to buy shoes anyway, but there are impacts.
If, instead of shipping in shoes, the organization were to purchase shoes from the local market then the program would not only be giving away shoes that are appropriate to the climate and culture, but also putting money into the local economy which benefits many more people than just those receiving the shoes.
Also the donations could hurt local merchants if the shoe recipients decide that they need the money more than the shoes. The aid recipients may then sell their shoes for far less then the local merchant can because they got them for free whereas the local merchant has to charge enough to cover his costs.
Does the aid agency address the economic issues of importing donated shoes and is there evidence that the local people have been consulted and showed a preference to receiving shoes shipped in from abroad versus those purchased locally?
Potential impacts of donated shoes on the health of the recipients
Again this may seem silly to consider because one of the large arguments supporting the need for donated shoes are the diseases contracted by walking around barefoot. However, the donated shoes may have their own health issues.
For instance in Thailand toenails are cut as deep as possible on the sides to reduce problems caused by fungal infections in the tropical climate. Would sending over lace up or leather shoes increase the possibility of fungal infections. Think of all the teenagers that struggle with athlete’s foot in developed countries, and that’s with a plentiful supply of clean socks to change into. Imagine wearing leather shoes through the rainy season, with no other shoes to change into, no heating source to dry your shoes and no extra pairs of socks to change into. Although these fungal infections may be less severe then the worms that can be picked up by walking barefoot, it would be far better to purchase shoes locally to ensure they are appropriate for the local climate.
Has the aid agency addressed any health concerns that may arise from donated shoes, and have they consulted the aid recipients as to whether it would be better to ship in shoes donated from abroad or purchased shoes locally.
Potential impacts of donated shoes on the culture of the recipients
If children traditionally run around without shoes then the donated shoes will not have an impact unless they are accompanied with a program aimed at behavior change. Behavior change is not easy (see Mosquito nets, condoms and recycling) and often requires a cultural change to be successful. Without this you can donate all the shoes you want and the children still won’t wear them.
Has the needs assessment ascertained how much of going barefoot is based on a lack of shoes and how much is based on tradition. If going barefoot is common even when shoes are available, is the aid agency willing and able to provide the time, effort, and staffing needed to change the culture of the village or do they just want to pop in and out and call the project a success?
Other potential impacts of donated shoes
Has the project taken into account some other impacts of handing out donated shoes. For instance:
- Are the fancy foreign shoes so highly prized that they are only worn on special occasions?
- Is there the possibility that the donated shoes will lead to shoe recipients being beaten up for their shoes or have the shoes stolen in other ways?
- Will the aid recipients take the shoes to the second hand clothing market and sell them shortly after the donor leaves for money to purchase other goods?
Although some of these impacts may not have been anticipated at the beginning of the program, the aid agency should be conducting project evaluations – that include far more than just chatting with the people that received the shoes – to determine the real impact of the program and to make changes as needed. Has that program shipping shoes overseas done that or do they just send happy pictures of people receiving donated shoes?
Other aid fads
In general, shipping donated goods overseas is considered poor aid practice for all of the reasons listed above. If you look closely at the aid agencies collecting shoes they tend to be new agencies riding on the coattails of the latest fad. They are able to do this so successfully because of two other current aid fads:
- Little or no administration costs – this favors activities such as shoe distribution because everything can be donated. Unfortunately low administration costs does not mean the aid project is useful or even needed, and in fact often leads to poorly planned and implemented aid projects. (see Charity ratings based on administration costs often do more harm than good)
- Voluntourism - where the people donating get to go into the field to work with the aid recipients. This fad has led to “hug vacations” where people volunteer at orphanages even though standards call for stable and long term relationships with caregivers; construction projects where unskilled volunteers pay to help out rather than taking the cost of the plane ticket to hire skilled local people that are likely desperate for paid work; and most recently volunteer shoe fitters that pay a fee to travel to the developing country to help properly fit shoes on aid recipients – which would not be needed if shoes were bought locally (see Disaster tourism, When is it appropriate for a donor to visit an aid recipient, and Guideline #1 for volunteering overseas).
Become an informed donor
We owe it to the people we’re trying to help to provide the best aid possible, and not just jump to support the latest fad. Before donating ensure that the organization you are donating to is professional enough to work with aid recipient communities to conduct a thorough needs assessment, develop a project plan to address the core needs, and regularly conducts in-depth project evaluations. Unfortunately, going with your gut feelings can often lead to poor aid projects, because all too often what feels good to the donor is not what is best for the people they are trying to help.
—–
Related posts:
6 questions you should ask before donating goods overseas
The worst in-kind donations
Disaster tourism
When is it appropriate for a donor to visit an aid recipient
Best practices often lose out to quick and cheap projects the please donors
Why do we so often give aid in ways that do not support the local economy?
Guideline #1 for volunteering overseas
« Related articles and posts September 20 – 26, 2009 • Hug-an-orphan vacations »
I’m starting to think that the rule-of-thumb blanket statements need to be:
1) It is almost never a good idea to give stuff away (exception would be relief settings).
2) It is almost never a good idea to move stuff from a developed country to a developing country as part of a development intervention.
J.
I understand the need to be more nuanced in recommendations and that I can sometimes be too black and white. One of the problems is how nuanced to get.
For instance the caveat that the exception is relief settings is not wholly accurate as there are many items that still shouldn’t be sent even in relief settings.
Also, with the “almost” never a good idea to move stuff from a developed country to a developing country, what would the exceptions be?
However, I understand that I may need to soften some statements and ensure that I continue to focus on the importance of a thorough needs assessment and regular project evaluations. Aid agencies need to show the donor that they have really investigated the problem and aren’t just going for the most donor pleasing solutions.
Some interesting perspectives here. I recall once an NGO in a mega Indian city asked for old clothes in good condition for sending it to rural areas, where there was a flood. Well, it was shocked to receive mini skirts etc, which were of no use at all. That said, sometimes it is easier to get donations in kind (of stuff that people no longer need) instead of hard cash. But such projects need to be undertaken with a lot of thought and a lot of specification.
Now this NGO actually asks people to donate only saris preferably cotton (worn even in urban India by a few), shirts and trousers. It was a learning curve for the NGO. As regards the dresses that they received and could not use, well they sold it in a charity sale and got some money which was used in this rural area.
I’m curious if you’ve ever traveled to a county like Africa. When we arrive there with suit cases of clothes and yes SHOES that we have culled from our own closets and bring them to small villages – the people flock to us desperate to get their hands on anything we have. we can never bring enough stuff. Yes they sell shoes in these countries but in countries that are so corrupt and people that are very poor they don’t have an option like we do of running out and buying a pair of shoes. We support a family that has 4 children under the age of 16. The father died of aids and ther mother who was 42 died of some other disease. The children live in one room, grass hut in the boonies with a grandmother. These are the kind of people that will always need help. and we are the type of people with resources to provide some help.
don’t over analyze the generosity of others as some sort of evil system to make the “haves” feel better. There really are people who need help, and can’t help themselves.
What nonsense.
Dear BJ,
I have traveled and lived in very poor places and I have seen people that do not have the money to purchase clothes themselves. I have also seen the negative impact that well-intentioned donations long after the donor has returned home.
While the family you are helping does not have the money to purchase clothes, traveling there with suitcases full of used clothes may not be the best way to help. There are other solutions that would have a greater positive impact on both the direct recipients and the larger community. For instance, if instead of importing clothes you purchase clothes from a local marketplace in that country, then you not only give clothes to that family but you would also support the family selling the clothes and the workers in the factory making the clothes. Or, if you take the family to the market place and give them the money you would have spent on clothes, then they have the ability to purchase the items that they felt best meets their needs, which might not be the same as what you think their greatest needs are. Or imagine how their life would change if, instead of flying there yourself, you transferred the money you would have spent on plane tickets into a bank account in their name. But then that probably wouldn’t meet YOUR needs.
There are a lot of different solutions for the same problem. Just because a solution makes you personally feel good does not mean that it is best for the people you are trying to help or for the greater community. Giving good aid is not as simple as it seems.
Hi Saundra,
I understand your theory overall and in fact agree with it in general. There is no perfect solution for any one situation, but basically I read your opinion as “give a hand up, not out”. or a favorite of everyone is give a man a fish and feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime. All Good my friend…You are also correct that it would not meet MY needs as I’m going there anyway why not bring a few things that we would only throw away here. We also do send money to a small store nearby that allows them to buy the things that meet THEIR needs. That actually works quite well. As far as the damage that is being done by giving, I don’t see it. Maybe you could be a little more specific for me?
BJ,
I’m glad you look at a variety of ways to help out.
I’m not sure which part of the damage by donated goods you want me to elaborate on, so I’ll assume you meant the potential economic damage.
If it were only you giving to this one family the effect would be so little as to not be worth mentioning. But it’s not, there are hundreds of organizations and thousands of other individuals sending over donated shoes, underwear, bras, clothes, school supplies, food, and even used soap.
Why does this matter? If you really boil it down, the only reason that people need donated goods is because they can’t afford to pay for it themselves. Saudi Arabia has a very poor agriculture sector, but does not need food aid because they have the money to import the food they need.
It follows that if there were enough jobs available that paid a high enough wage for people to purchase either the local or imported goods they need, there’d be much less need for any foreign aid and there would be more money available locally to fund local aid organizations to help the poor. Protecting and creating livelihoods is critical.
This can be seen even in the US in the recent economic crisis. There were billions put into TARP with the goal of creating and protecting jobs. There was also a debate in congress as to whether or not to require all construction funded by TARP to use only US steel in order to protect the steel industry from being out competed by cheaper imports.
Think of the impact that the influx of all these free goods will have on the local manufacturing and farming communities. In the name of aid we are importing tons of goods similar to those manufactured locally. By giving goods away for free we may be destroying livelihoods, thereby creating more people in need of aid.
How does this happen? Importing donated goods leads to not purchasing locally made goods. Thus the shopkeeper and manufacturer do not make money with which to pay their staff and cannot create any new jobs. Or the donated goods are sold at the second hand market at far below what locally produced goods can be sold for. This may bring in money to the shop keeper but not to the local manufacturer and their staff. Either way we have unintentionally hurt the local manufacturing industry and potentially caused businesses to fail and people to lose livelihoods.
If, on the other hand, the aid went to purchasing locally produced goods then the shop keepers business would increase, their orders to the local manufacturers would increase and both could hire more people. This would mean that there would be more people with money to purchase other goods or food and thereby support other local farmers, shopkeepers, and merchants.
The more people that have steady jobs with decent wages, the more stable the economy becomes, and the more they are able to help others.
So, in essence, donating goods does not support the local economy as much as purchasing goods locally, and if enough goods are donated it can actually hurt the local economy.
I hope that explanation helped. Best, Saundra
Kindness and helping others does not create harm; war and disease does.
Much of your argument relies on the assumption there are “local manufacturing and farming communities,” or a functioning economy at all, rather than a people who are truly living hand-to-mouth.
Another blindspot in your logic is the well known aphorism: “Perfect is the enemy of good.” See also: Nirvana fallacy.
Of course, there will always be criticisms of those who attempt to do anything in the public eye…
I’m starting to see that all people want for donations is cash. Which is really disheartening. Local economies may be affected negatively by in kind donations, but people with less money don’t donate to prop up economic development. They donate in kind, because of a feeling of helping one-to-one. If you have to pay customs and shipping for physical goods, so what? That’s part of the process.
And finally if people are offended by what they receive, then ultimately that’s their problem. If they want to walk barefoot, more power to them. If jeans in the tropics are too hot, cut them into shorts. If they re-sell donated products, to buy a better meal for the week, or to have a little extra water trucked in that’s fine. There are too many people in the world for all of them to be fishermen. Sometimes you just need to give them the fish in hand, and move on.
Gabriel,
Sounds like you’re more concerned about the needs of the donor than the needs of the recipient. The needs of the recipient should always come first or your donation could well be wasted. And aside from a warm fuzzy feeling for the donor it would all be pretty pointless.
I’m from Malaysia, and there are shops here that sell used clothes from the States. Sometimes I wonder whether these clothes were donated because they look rather used (soiled) or are uniforms from restaurants. These shops are profit-minded and none of the clothes or money goes back to charity. It does make you wonder… whether these clothes were collected from a charity drive and subsequently someone else is making money off them!
I’m wondering if there have been any critiques yet of the various new “cook stove” technologies. I always think of an organization I know of in Uganda that already does this, made from all local materials and are not dependent on any outside supply or expertise. See: http://www.cetrud.org/wb/pages/programs/appropriate-technology.php
Honestly, I completely disagree. Have you ever been to a country with children and adults walking around barefoot, on glass, rocks, germs, and who knows what else? No, I would venture to guess you haven’t. People in places like Africa and Haiti have NOTHING. I personally have taken clothes, food, toys, and, yes, SHOES, to Haiti. And the ORPHANS we gave them to greatly appreciated it. So before you talk about how those countries “don’t need shoes as much as they need other things,” go there yourself.
Shelby
You might be amazed to find out that yes, I’ve been to Haiti. As well as very poor areas in Asia. And there ARE shoes for sale in Haiti, which means you were potentially undercutting their ability to make a living for themselves.
Also, there’s a very good potential that the “orphans” you gave the shoes to were not actually orphans at all.
I would really suggest you watch the video for A Day Without Dignity http://goodintents.org/in-kind-donations/the-day-without-dignity-video. Or read the many posts written for the Day Without Dignity counter-campaign. http://goodintents.org/in-kind-donations/a-day-without-dignity
All of the people that wrote these posts have been to very poor areas or are from very poor areas. They might help you see the situation a little differently.
Saundra,
I understand what you are saying about the local economy, and the dangers of importing goods. However, I think you may be missing one major point. We have shoes, many Americans will not buy used shoes even in good shape. I do not know of any organization that redistributes shoes in usable condition within the developed world. There are very few ways to recycle used shoes. So if we are not to donate our used shoes to these organizations, where shall we send them, it seems like you would prefer to send items to the landfill rather than allow them to be used by those who can and will use them. To answer June, they may well be profiting from things collected for charity (That is exactly what Goodwill does). I would not at all be opposed to my items being sold at costs that were reasonable and affordable to the poor in developing areas, if that money was then used to enrich the community.
I see homeless people without shoes right here in the US, on the streets of my native New York, one of the richest parts of the richest country that has ever existed. It would be so much cheaper to give shoes to them, if people are dead set on giving shoes to someone. No one in the world has to look to another country for opportunities to help others.
Shoelessness is not arguably a problem in the US.
And when it appears to be…
“NY Homeless Man Given Boots By Cop Has 30 Pairs Of Shoes At His Apartment”
http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2013/03/homeless-man-given-boots-cop-30-pairs-shoes/
I strongly disagree with your statement that shoes are not a priority. There are so many diseases, like podoconiosis and hookworm, that could be so easily prevented just by granting children with shoes! Shoes can help “get people back on their feet” -no pun intended! I heard a story about a young woman in Africa with podoconiosis that was gifted with a pair of shoes, she was so in awe. She carried that precious pair of shoes all the way back to her home. People in Africa themselves may not realize their need for shoes until they are infected with a disease that could be so easily prevented. We are not providing a way to earn things without working, we are just giving them a way to prevent disease!! This would not create dependency, we are not doing everything for them.