A.
Aid Dependence and Feelings of Entitlement
1.
Foreign Aid to Malawi
The twin topics of aid dependence and entitlement are
frequently raised by Westerners (including government leaders, scholars,
reporters, and NGO representatives) when discussing the risks of helping out
financially poor Africans, including those in Malawi, one of the poorest
countries in the world. Given the
massive amounts of aid directed at Malawi, it is easy for Malawians to become
“aid” dependent, and the receipt of that aid often leads to feelings of
“entitlement.” Without question, many Malawians
find it difficult to provide, solely from their personal resources, for the
day-to-day needs of their families. They
don’t earn enough money to buy food, pay for housing, cover school fees, and
defray incidental health expenses, including the purchase of prescription
drugs. Their budgets are strained
beyond capacity in the event of an unexpected tragedy—sudden illness, the loss
of a bread earner, flooding or droughts--or to handle the costs incurred with a
funeral or wedding. Without assistance, these families suffer
great deprivation, occasionally finding themselves at the edge of starvation.
Foreign aid from countries around the world, NGOs, and
churches (including the Mormon Church) often serves as the bridge to help those
who are poor and needy span the gap between their available resources and the
costs of their most immediate human needs.
Frequently, this foreign aid comes in the form of institution-to-institution
loans, grants or subsidies from foreign sources to Malawian organizations, including
governmental bodies and NGOs, which in turn deal directly with the local
populations they serve. In those
instances, the presence of the foreign funding may not be evident to the local
population. The foreign monies, together with those
available locally, are used to fund the delivery of no-cost or low-cost health
services; the availability of highly subsidized education; the construction and
servicing of major public utilities—water, sewage and power; and the subsidized
construction of other major infrastructure programs, such as roads, dams,
irrigation systems, athletic facilities, governmental buildings.
In other cases, foreign aid sources may work more directly
with the target beneficiaries; but even then, they usually employ one or more
Malawians as local partners or third party intermediaries to assist in coordinating
with local government bodies, navigating the local regulations, identifying suitable
recipients, and distributing the aid. Under these circumstances, Malawians are apt
to be aware of receiving aid from foreign sources. There
is an almost endless list of large and small foreign organizations active in
Malawi, providing money to support orphanages, provide medical care, relieve
hunger, combat sexually transmitted diseases, comfort women and children,
including among others Doctors without Borders, UNESCO, Meals by Mary, Hope
Africa, Raising Malawi, CARE Malawi, Save the Children, Concern Worldwild and a
countless number of church sponsored groups, including the Catholic Relief
Services and the Mormon Church.
2.
The Crippling Effect of Providing Aid
Anyone providing aid to Malawi is mindful of the unintended
risk that the delivery of the aid itself, while addressing pressing human needs
crying out for immediate help, may, at the same time, have long-term crippling consequences
for the pool of recipients. It may
undermine self-reliance, sapping individuals of the will to develop their own
skills, leaving them without core skills necessary to provide for themselves. Those
receiving the aid may become “aid dependent,” and develop feelings of
“entitlement.” So often the presence of foreign aid, rather
than helping the local populations, makes them captive and even more vulnerable
than they were before receiving the assistance.
Rarely does the foreign aid come
in the form of direct gifts of money to the target recipients, but rather is
delivered as supplies, commodities, services, or provisions--such as bags of
maize or flour; the drilling of boreholes to provide clean drinking water; the
delivery of mosquito nets, blankets, temporary shelters, and latrines; the access
to dental or medical services.
3.
The Terms of “Aid Dependence” and “Entitlement”
Before talking more about the risks of aid dependence and
entitlement, it is worthwhile to define more precisely what people likely have
in mind when using these terms. The
meaning of the “aid dependence” is not particularly hard to decipher. One is “dependent” when one relies, either
intentionally or not, upon the aid of others to meet some or all of one’s basic
human needs (food, shelter, security, health) rather than looking solely to
one’s own resources or the those that can be mustered from working within the
extended family, who have claim, due to family ties, upon one another to care
of each other’s needs. Obviously, certain classes of individuals are
“aid dependent”—infants, children, the sick and infirm, the elderly—because
they lack the mental or physical capacity to fend for themselves and have no
choice but to look to others for assistance.
Another class is the “poor,” who due to lack of skills or resources or misfortune
find themselves suffering. In some cases, this mental or physical
incapacity is expected to be temporary—such as in the case of children as they
grow up and learn the skills needed to be independent or in the case of the
sick who may recover from the crippling effects of illness or in the case of the
poor if they are able to develop skills or exercise initiative to overcome their
challenges. In other instances, “aid dependence” may
continue for the balance of an individual’s life, potentially placing great
demands upon others to show compassion and to provide ongoing help. For this
purpose we are not talking about emotional dependence—and there are certainly many
instances or that—nor about situations when individuals rely upon close family members
to support their ongoing physical needs.[1]
Usually, the term “entitlement” is used to describe the
state of mind that exists when an individual believes he has a “right” (hence,
is “entitled”) to receive from someone a particular benefit, privilege, advantage
or item (collectively, a “benefit”).
However, when using this definition, the word “right” may be ill-advised. It might be more appropriate to speak in
terms of “expectations.” Accordingly,
one has a sense of “entitlement” when one “expects” to receive from someone a benefit,
however that “expectation” might have arisen.
Feelings of entitlement are tied
at the hip with aid dependence, the one flowing from the other.
There is another concept that is so closely tied to that of
“entitlement” or “expectation,” as to be an inherent part of its colloquial
use. Once the sense of entitlement has
been created, those feeling “entitled” will experience disappointment or anger
or resentment if the benefit that is expected is not forthcoming, in that it is
cut back, withdrawn, or eliminated without their consent. This is the case because the recipient
acquires an expectation of “continuing” receipt. One has received the benefit in the past and
expects to receive the benefit in the future.
4.
The Sources of “Entitlement”
What precisely gives rise to these “expectations” or
“feelings of “entitlement” in the first place?
There is not a single answer to this question. One
may feel “entitled” to a benefit because of one’s hard work, industry, social
status, ancestry, or property. Similarly,
one may gain an expectation because the benefit is part of the law. But when employed in connection with the
“poor,” “entitlement” is hardly ever thought to grow out of the hard work or
industry of the poor. Instead, the poor
become “entitled” to a benefit, because that benefit has, for some period of
time, been granted to the poor. Hence,
the history of the largesse creates the “expectation” of future benefits, and
that expectation over time is converted into a claim of “right.” No longer is it fair or equitable to cut
back upon the “expectation,” It does
not matter that, when the benefit was first granted, the benefit was given
voluntarily, was the result of charity, and even bestowed with the expectation
that it might be withdrawn in the future.
If the aid was given without an expectation of labor or work by the
poor, the poor will likely feel “entitled” to the continuing receipt of the
aid, whether or not they do anything for its receipt. This of course runs contrary to the common
notion that people should be accountable for themselves as expressed in the
following verse from the Doctrine and Covenants: “Thou shalt not be idle, for he that is idle
shall not eat the bread nor wear the garments of the laborer.”[3]
Many may feel such
relationships—granting benefits without some expectation of work or labor in
exchange—are simply not sustainable over time, nor are they justified, even by
principles of Christian charity. Sooner or later funding sources disappear,
leaving those dependent upon them for sustenance ill-equipped to deal with the
future.
5.
The Role of Senior MLS Missionaries
As senior MLS missionaries, we do not control, nor make any
decisions, regarding the disbursement of Church funds used to help the poor and
needy. Branch presidents and bishops
are responsible for administering the welfare funds to help local members—and
it is to them that the local members are to go for aid when they have welfare
needs. The use of the PEF[4]
funds is under the direction of the District PEF specialists, and the local
welfare missionaries, together with the welfare specialists in the Area Office,
control how the available “humanitarian” aid of the Church is applied within
the Zambia Lusaka Mission. All we
control is the use of our personal monies and how we use our own time to
provide charitable help. During our
time in Malawi, we have found, as the missionaries before us, and as will be
the case for the missionaries after us--that questions as to the “right” course
of action—what to do with our time and resources--come up, over and over again. This is the case because our members, as
well as others in the community, have many basic human needs that neither they nor
others can readily handle. So we are
constantly required to exercise judgment to answer these three basic questions—(i)
whom do we help, (ii) how do we help, and (iii) what can we do to ensure that
we are doing the most good possible. We also
have to worry about whether we are actually hurting others when we try to help.
Under the rubric of these three overarching questions, we
have, since arriving in Malawi, been forced to grapple with these specific
questions. Is it ever right to loan or
give money to members to cover welfare needs, bearing in mind the Church’s
counsel that such gifts or loans should not be made? When
does being charitable cross the line—causing more bad than good? How
can we help others to be more self-reliant?
Is it appropriate to step in at the last minute, when it becomes
apparent that others—perhaps even others with a responsibility to help—fail to
come through? Are some human needs so
pressing, that concerns about “aid dependence” and teaching correct principles
must be subordinated in the interest of basic human compassion? When is “charity” not about “money,” even if
the exercise of charity involves the spending of money? How do
we keep things from getting out of hand?
When might our charitable acts be more about “ourselves”
than those we think we are helping?
[1] Instances
of both “emotional” dependence, as well as dependence upon family members, may be
unhealthy.
[3]
D&C. 42: 42.
[4] “PEF”
means “Perpetual Education Fund.”
No comments:
Post a Comment