ALLISON SCHRAGER | THE MICROPHILANTHROPIST | February 8th 2008

babasteve/Flickr

How should we help people in troubled developing countries? And how do we do this while staying comfortably at home? So much aid is paternalistic and ineffective. Allison Schrager considers better alternatives ...

Regardless of how you feel about why we are in Afghanistan, many of us would hope to improve the daily lives of those who live there. But how can we help the citizens of a country so far away? How do we even know what they might need? I could join the military or find work with an NGO there. But really, I am far too selfish to do either of these things. I have endless admiration for those who are willing to disrupt their lives and put them on the line. I, however, want to be able to offer help from the comfort of my own home.

As a microphilanthropist, I usually hesitate to support most NGOs in developing countries, particularly in places where I am largely ignorant of the history, culture and development needs. Something about it feels imperialistic, even paternalistic, as if I have the power to decide what is in the best interest of a place I have never visited. I am also wary of efforts to preserve a country's traditional economic institutions and customs--in the name of sustaining its "culture"--particularly when such institutions traditionally have not served its people and may be contrary to development. 

Giving money to a war-torn, fledgling democracy brings up many conflicts for me. It may be well intentioned, but under the wrong circumstances it could make a bad situation worse. You may not be convinced by economic arguments against aid, such as those voiced by William Easterly. But it is hard to deny that aid can do harm when given too enthusiastically to countries in need. However, putting the ever-sceptical economist in me aside, the fact remains that I do want to help people in Afghanistan. How can I do this effectively, and without offending my professional sensibilities?

The best way is to find an organisation that has local knowledge of the country and a thorough understanding of its economic needs. Also, target individuals and leave the big macro-development projects to the government and large aid organisations. I find the Global Partnership for Afghanistan (GPFA) appealing. It is a New York-based charity, founded by Afghan-Americans and Americans, which offers micro-loans to Afghan land owners to plant fruit and nut orchards. It also provides agricultural training and support to the Afghan farmers, particularly women. The group's goal is to spur economic development by empowering individual farmers with a source of income and food.

I usually recoil at talk of agricultural subsidies. But in this case the farmers receive micro-loans, which require some discipline and accountability. Micro-loans, when administered properly, provide an institution that developing countries generally lack.

Decades of war have devastated the Afghan countryside and rendered much of it nearly infertile. Most arable land has been devoted to the illicit cultivation of poppies for opium-related drugs. Though economically viable, growing poppies is not conducive to Afghanistan's long-term political and economic objectives. In this case, an exogenous incentive may be what this population needs.

GPFA works closely with Afghan economists, agricultural experts and local NGOs, which gives the group sound knowledge of what Afghanis need for development. Encouraging agriculture makes sense because Afghanistan has a rich agricultural history before the wars and it provides a foundation for future economic development.

The desire to help people who are far away, and in circumstances we cannot imagine, is a particularly challenging objective for the microphilanthropist. But it is possible to provide some assistance as long as we take the time to figure out the best means to do so.

(Allison Schrager is an economist based in New York.)