A big question, that begs to be answered by many modern philanthropists, is whether it is "...better to give in response to an emotional need or are dollars better spent when tied to a metric that measures how effective they are?" (Paul Sullivan, NYTimes). There is a big debate that surrounds this question solely due to the fact that many believe donating money to a cause is not as valuable as donating your time to a cause. For example, is it more effective for a person to continue donating money to a cause that feeds starving children in Africa or a person who actively travels to Africa in attempts to address the problem first hand?
Often times there exists this huge debate because people aren't sure that philanthropists are giving money to charity for the right reasons. Are philanthropists donating their money/time because they genuinely care about the issue that the charity attempts to address or is it for selfish moral reasons? In this week's New York Times article, The Way To Produce A Person, David Brooks essentially criticizes a person who would rather donate large sums of money to help a cause rather than attempting to address the issue first hand. For example, if your heart's interest lies in ending hunger in Africa, Brooks challenges you to consider flying to Africa to attempt to solve this problem by physically providing food for the impoverished or seeing the problem first hand. However, is it too much to ask of an individual?
In my opinion, I believe that any contribution that a person makes to charity should be valued and respected. The act of giving back/donating to charity should be honored and not taken for granted. In today's society, people are often times quick to judge others intentions, especially when finances are involve. Rather, the gift of time/money should be valued for what it is and what it does for charities. I don't think that the difference between one's donation of money versus one's donation of time should be highlighted. On the contrary, both should be celebrated and regarded as an act of goodness. On a matter of opinion, some may have differing thoughts on the value of donating one's money versus donating one's time. As a reader, what is your opinion on this issue? Is there a significant difference between donating one's time versus money and if so, which is intrinsically more valuable and why?
To ignite this debate concerning philanthropy, take Mark Zuckerberg's famous act of philanthropy in recent times as an example. Mark Zuckerberg recently came under some heat after announcing that he and his wife Priscilla Chan will give away 99% of Facebook's shares for philanthropic purposes. (click here) What seemed like a philanthropic act on a grand scale upon Zuckerberg's announcement, many critics highlighted the fact that Zuckerberg may have done this for his own self-benefit. Critics say that Zuckerberg started this charity fund as a means of tax avoidance. They also claimed that since Zuckerberg's charity fund is technically under a LLC company, the funds will only be used for profiting purposes and that the money will end up going back to Facebook in the end. What is your opinion on this matter? Do you think that Zuckerberg is under fire for the right reasons or not?
Upon reading this blog post, I reflected a lot upon the reading in the New York Times article " Two Paths for Charitable Giving: From the Head or From the Hear", that we had done for homework (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/29/your-money/charitable-giving-from-head-or-heart.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&ref=your-money&). Whether it is time or money, we are still giving to a cause- and isn't that more than we can ask? Why criticize a person who can write a check to an organization because they have the money to do so? You're right, it is not solving the problem at hand but the "right reason" for donating money is seen through the motives behind writing the check. It all comes down to your core values- a theme that is starting to become prominent in class. Critics who suspect philanthropists of blindly writing a check don't see that an emotional need or feeling is tied to donations. Some might say that philanthropy can be selfish in the fact you donate to nonprofits that connect to them in a personal way. Putting all of this together, my main point is that monetary donations shouldn't be stigmatized as a bad thing. Yes, seeing people physically conduct an act and make a tangible change may be seen as making much more of an impact than donating money. But from personal experience, I know that many people volunteer for all the wrong reasons- whether it be a resume builder, they need community service hours, etc. It is hard to put a label on whether money or service time is more valuable. Giving money to a cause that is near to your heart may be valuable to you in the sense that it satisfies your emotions and attachments to the cause. However, donating time to a cause may be valuable in a way that the metrics of your volunteerism can make an impact on the cause as well. Just like most themes in this class, this aspect of philanthropy is very subjective but I hope you liked hearing my point of view on the issue between donating money or time!
ReplyDeleteI think that Zuckerberd's charitable move is admirable, and shouldn't be as scrutinized as it is by the public. I agree very much that either time or money can be subjectively beneficial for aiding a cause; dedication to a charitable end shouldn't be measured in, quantifiably, exactly how a person makes a difference. However, when it comes to why a person makes a difference, that's where I think the philanthropic process deserves our judgment, and scrutiny.
ReplyDeleteOn the site "This I Believe" which we visited for homework, Mohondas Gandhi's speech, "The Elixir of Growth," elicits a way that we should judge these kinds of contributions to society. Like Jillian said, people are often philanthropic in an inherently ironic way: even though philanthropy means "love of humanity," many people will partake for selfish reasons, like community service hours or résumés. However, Gandhi professes that the elixir of growth for an individual is not found in such literal growths as those recorded on a résumé, but rather in his acceptance of a singular creed to love everyone equally, whether acquainted or unacquainted. This, he explains, was his rationale for the Salt March and his many fasts, because he considers his individual loss to be superseded in worth by the gain of his fellow man. Both Gandhi's political goals and philanthropic aid to the poor were successful, thanks in no small part to this philosophy (for instance, it heavily informed his non-violent protests). Observing Gandhi's method and hearing his rationale begs the question: is Gandhi's postulate for love the elixir of growth for philanthropy, too? Without a truly philanthropic rationale, can any philanthropy be truly effective?
Half-hearted civil servants and grimacing grant-givers are equally at fault when judged against such a model as Gandhi's model of philanthropy: his love of humanity. Even if the money and service from these reluctants help a cause, it sets a poor example to those around them about philanthropic spirit, and therefore delineates philanthropy through hypocrisy more than it helps; this was Gandhi's opinion---that being earnest is more valuable than being effective in giving back to humanity. I agree completely with this, and think therefore that a judgmental view for change should be placed against Machiavellian giving, so to speak: the ends don't justify the means, but rather, in philanthropy more earnest means cyclically create even more ways to help via the collective, charitable spirit. In this way, greater ends can be attained then from even the most expensive but reluctantly-written check.
Great post! I'll start with the question that you posed about the Brooks article, "The Way to Produce a Person." It was my favorite reading this week, and I agree with you that any act of charity should be celebrated and not picked apart. People who donate, generally, are acting upon what their "core values and concerns" compel them to act upon. They donate to what they deem important, and to criticize someone for doing that is to criticize one of the biggest driving forces that lead people to donate. As a side note, I wanted to add that while I do agree with your criticism of the Brooks article, it did bring up important ideas. For example, it is important to make our actions the means not the ends; while I wouldn't criticize someone for donating their money, I think it is more admirable to be that person who actually goes to Africa to help fight malaria, not just write a check.
ReplyDeleteAs for the time v. money question, it is my belief that while money may have a bigger impact on those receiving aid, time will have a bigger impact on the giver. For example, I have donated my clothes to the homeless for as long as I can remember, but it wasn't really until I went with the people who distribute those clothes to New York City and met the homeless who received such donations, that I truly understood the idea of homelessness. Donating my time instead of money made me more passionate about the issue and gave me the drive to do more than just donate my clothes in the future.
Finally, as for the Zuckerberg criticism, it makes me sad that he is under fire. His donates, whether for the right reasons or not, are going to help millions of people. I can't attest to whether his philanthropy is done in good heart, but I can attest to the fact that his wealth is going to trickle down and help millions of people. We can analyze philanthropists and their actions as much as we want, but that money is going to do good, and that is what giving is all about.
I agree with Jill in that it doesn’t matter whether you donate time or money. Those that can afford to donate money definitely should because non-profits run on donations. Without money, they would not be able to complete their mission. However, without volunteers, these organizations would not be able to do as much good as they could. For example, CHOW has a small amount of employees but a vast amount of volunteers. Without funding, they could not provide the amount of food or reach the amount of people they currently do.
ReplyDeleteThis makes me think about criminals that get sentenced to community service. I don’t think that the fact they get forced to do community service is a bad thing. This is an immense amount of extra hands all over the country. These people clean up highways and volunteer at local nonprofits.
I don’t think people with money should be scrutinized when they donate to charity. I don’t think it matters why someone donates to charity; the act itself is enough to help. Whether we should focus on donating time or money is a question that will never have answer; kind of like what came first, the chicken or the egg? But what matters most is that those that are able to offer assistance in their community or across the globe are able to do so.
I love when the part of your post stating that both acts are good and necessary for charities to progress.
ReplyDeleteTo add a personal story to the situation: When I traveled to Nicaragua over winter break for a service trip, the vocational school I was working at had NO running water. This is actually very common, but it was a huge burden because we were making significant amounts of cement by hand as well as cooking and cleaning dishes for 100 volunteers and villagers. What was most surprising was that formerly an organization in the states had donated enough money for the installation of a deep water well. A deep water well is important because it is less likely to dry up in the extreme heat of Central America. The deep water well was installed a year before we arrived. However, there was no pump to bring the water up to the surface, therefore there was still no running water and the problem was not fully solved. The cost to install the pump was about $800 (which is a very significant amount in the rural village I was working in). Within one day, four of our strongest team members were able to install the pump and pipes for free and the school now has an abundant amount of running, clean water for their program. Of course, someone could have donated the $800 needed, but instead since we were already there working on dormitories, we were also able to provide that service for free too and as a result it significantly changed the resources available to them.
So, overall my point would be that BOTH are very important and needed to run a program. The Nicaraguans needed the money for the parts and pipes involved with the well, but they also needed people who could install the pump. Nonprofits also need both forms of aid, time and money. I do especially think service is a meaningful act, especially after this experience, because it creates awareness and genuine humbleness. While we are going to be donating a monetary grant this semester, I'm hoping the connections we make through working with the organizations to review their grant requests will also provide meaningful ways to volunteer and become involved in our local community as well.
To start off, your post really brings up a lot of great points that I have been thinking about this week. In particular, the fact just donating money isn't as substantial as donating your time to a particular organization. You ask the question, "Is there a significant difference between donating one's time versus money" and my response is that there is a difference but who can really say what is more valuable. I personally don't see a difference because you need both volunteers and money in order for a non-profit to function. For example, you can have all the volunteers in the world helping to find a cure for cancer, but without funding you can't do any research or run a lab so in that situation money is more important. In Brooks' article he condemns someone for choosing a job on Wall-Street instead of physically going to Africa and saving dying children. This is almost an ignorant statement because Brooks isn't looking at the full scope of a situation. In Julie's blog this week she posted the link to a Ted Talk by Peter Singer. In this talk he brings up the point that it only costs between 20 and 50 dollars to cure a blind person in Africa. If someone were to choose a high paying career like in business or finance and donate large sums of money, like Singer says Will Crouch recommends doing, they could save thousands of lives over the span of their career and still live comfortably. If anything we can see that money has just as much value, if not more value, when it comes to donating to a cause. Like you said, any contribution should be valued and respected, whether it be a monetary donation, volunteer time, or anything else that one might give.
ReplyDeleteI believe it's not easy to have a clear-cut definitive answer that works for this problem. The answer may change based on experience. For example, when looking at going to Africa to help vs. giving money to help feed people in Africa, it may actually be more helpful to fund the people who are already there and able to help, and spend your time doing other things, possibly helping on a more local scale.
ReplyDeleteAnother thought that comes to mind when thinking about this conondrum is that donating money would be completely useless if there weren't people already out there donating their time, because without the manpower of the organization you are donating to then the money wouldn't help with anything!
I agree with the fact that giving in any way, whether it be money or time, is a great gift and should be respected and honored. I understand that sometimes people may be giving money for the wrong reasons, but regardless of the true reason, their money is still being used productively to help make some sort of positive change in the world.
When looking at Zuckerberg's decision, I believe that regardless of his reasoning behind doing what he is doing, it should still be respected and regarded with praise. Even if he made this decision for tax avoidance reasons, it will still lead to positive and beneficial charitable work, which cannot be looked at as a bad thing.
I see the relevance of talking about Mark Zuckerberg but I don't think it entirely fits the theme of whether or not it's better to donate time or donate money. But, I think that both the Zuckerberg situation and the debate are interesting and need to be addressed. This was a very thought provoking post.
ReplyDeleteIs time more valuable or is money? It's often been said that celebrities and rich people give money just so they don't have to give their time. They are criticized for this. They're also criticized for donating money to charity to improve their image. But, regardless of someone's motives for donating, it is still so clear that the organizations and causes benefitting from these donations very much need monetary donations to keep functioning. So, whether it is for the right reasons or not, any monetary donation is incredibly valuable. And, there are many rich people and not-rich people who give away their money because they genuinely want to. I recall in 2013 when basketball star Kevin Durant unanimously donated $1 million to help aid tornado relief in Oklahoma. The charity later announced he had donated the money. He genuinely donated that money to make a difference.
As far as time is concerned, it is incredibly admirable to dedicate ones life to a cause--as so many workers at non-profits do. Furthermore, it's admirable for lawyers to donate pro-bono hours, for students to work at soup kitchens, for adults to volunteer their time to organize breast cancer awareness events, ect. Certainly, it feels very goos to be out in the field doing the work and seeing the impact of your dedicated time and effort. However, some, such as famous philosopher Thomas Hobbes have argued that these people are just as selfish as the celebrities who donate money just to improve their image. Hobbes said that people only do charitable acts because it makes them feel good about themselves not because they genuinely want to do the acts. I personally feel that Hobbes has a far too negative outlook on service, but still, there are those that do argue giving time is selfish.
I feel that while neither time nor money is more valuable than the other, a combination of both is supremely helpful to causes and therefore more valuable to them.
Continuing with the celebrity trend, Bill Gates comes to mind. Bill Gates recently used his own money to purchase a large number of e textbooks. He then went on to create a website that provides free e textbook access to college students. Gates donated both his time and money and he created a valuable resource to combat student debt. Whether or not Gates actually dedicated his time or he just paid someone to do it, I don't know, but I'd like to believe he dedicated at least some of his time.
With regard to Mark Zuckerberg, I believe he is not being selfish and that this negative reaction to his giving is a sad representation of the incredibly cynical world we live in today. The truth is that Mark Zuckerberg is wealthy and successful enough to give away 99% of his wealth. He does not need to avoid taxes. I applaud him and his wife for their efforts.
I enjoyed reading your blog post, and it has caused me to think quite extensively about the issue at hand. Despite your post being centered around one question, I think that two big questions arose, both in your blog and in several comments. Those questions being: Is time or money more valuable? and, Does it matter why a person acts charitably? I thought I would give my two cents on the issues.
ReplyDeleteDoes it matter why a person donates to a charity? This is an interesting and complex question. There are two schools of thought that one can take when answering it. Those schools being deontology or a utilitarianism. The first dealing with the action and the intent of the action, the second dealing with the result of the action. If a wealthy man was to donate to help starving children in Africa, I think everyone would think that he would be acting morally good. However, if he had ill intentions, ie donating to impress a woman or avoid taxes, then the situation changes. The deontologist would argue his intentions are bad and therefore he is acting wrongly, however the utilitarian would argue that the consequences of his actions still benefited the children and therefore he was acting in a good way. Personally I follow the consequentialist approach in that I think the outcome of your action are more important than your reason for action.
Onto the main point of your blog, is time or money more valuable? I agree with you that donating both time or money are valuable endeavors. Also that it is pointless and counterproductive to attack one of the two ways of philanthropy. However, I think it is really a non answer to simply say that both are important, and have that be the end of it. My argument, (completely situational) is that sometimes donating money is more valuable than donating time. To make my case, I would argue that giving money to someone who does something professionally is more valuable than doing that thing yourself. I'll give two philanthropic examples, feeding children in Africa and building a hospital. In Africa, there are philanthropists who are already trained and know how to feed children in an effective way, I on the other hand have neither their experience or know-how. It would be better for me to give my money to someone who knows what they are doing. Same goes with building a hospital, I am neither an engineer or construction worker and therefore me volunteering would not help. This is my opinion, and I am sure you could find some situations in which time would be more valuable than money. Anyways thanks for the read!
Is money or time more valuable? I believe that money and time are valuable. The allocation and effectiveness of whatever time and money we give is what is important. There is a preconceived notion that the most righteous and ideal giving is through the donation of your time. After all, we’ve all heard “actions speak louder than words” and “you can’t throw money at a problem to fix it”. However, just like giving money isn’t always the best way to make effective change, giving time may also hinder the cause we want to help. Take for example, the girls in the article, “The Problem with Little White Girls, Boys and Voluntourism”. Although the girls were well intentioned in their efforts to build libraries in rural African neighborhoods, they weren’t as effective as they could have been. They didn’t know how to structure walls, speak the native language, or stay long enough to have a lasting impact. Instead, the hours they spent building were in vain when at night, the local men took down their structures to rebuild what the girls failed to do properly the first time. If you look at this case in an operational perspective, money would have been more valuable. The non-for profit could have hired local experienced workers instead and do the work in half the time. This isn’t to say that the time these girls spent wasn’t valuable or beneficial but it shows that an inefficient allocation of time hindered the growth of progress because the volunteers were not well versed or skilled in the field they wanted to help. We cannot believe that because we have an urge to do something good that it privileges or empowers us to control what is being done. That is why I don’t agree with the idea that you should always strive to give time and be criticized when you don’t give it. Sometimes you aren’t the man (or woman) for the job and that’s okay. Operational donations can be just as beneficial, if not more beneficial, as time given to an organization.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading this post and your thoughts about investing time or money into a philanthropy. The NYT article The Way To Produce A Person really resonated with me as well because it made me think about the good I could be doing as a student in this class and after I graduate college and enter the job market. Specifically when he said, “You might become one of those people who loves humanity in general but not the particular humans immediately around”, I thought about what that means in the context of the money that we have to give for this class.
I agree with you and many of the other comments that say any contribution that a person makes to a philanthropy should be treated with respect and has a value. I liked the point that Anthony made in comment that there is a difference between the two types of service, but who can really say which one is more valuable. I would also like to make the argument that yes, a lot of times people donate money to an organization because it is tax-deductible or they want to display their good work publicly, which isn’t the most respectful reason to make a donation, but there is still a donation being made. Like I said, this isn’t the best reason to make a donation to an organization but it is still doing overall good for the people the organization is impacting.
When I think about if I would rather invest my time or my money into an organization I think it is very dependent on the situation. For example, I strongly believe that everyone in the world should have access to a clean water resource. However, I do not have the engineering skills or background to go with a service group to a developing country to install wells or other sanitation measures. In this case I know that my time wouldn’t be the proper investment to make, so I would much rather donate my money to an organization such as Charity: Water that has the knowledge to complete these tasks. On the other hand, I think that investing my time a organization that works in a field that I have knowledge or skills in would be a better thing to do than donate money.
I completely agree with you that all contributions, no matter how large or small, should be respected. People are under no actual obligation to give anything to help others should they choose not to, so when they do, such behavior should be encouraged with hopes that they will continue to do so in the future. To tell someone they have to give more or do more, or that their contribution is out of ill intentions is no way to inspire future philanthropy. Granted, some people do donate to charities and organizations for tax benefits or some other selfish reason or to take advantage of a situation, but to reprimand people for not doing more, in my opinion, is not in the spirit of philanthropy.
ReplyDeleteThis being said, I do believe that there is also a place for committing time to a cause you are passionate about. Seeing first-hand the issues your cause faces or experiencing helping others, whether it be across the world in Africa or down the street at the food pantry, is very much a necessary part of philanthropy. Some do not have the resources to donate sums of money to a cause, and on the ground volunteers are crucial to the success of any program. To try and determine if giving of money or giving of time is the most valuable is to me almost impossible; both are necessary and equally important. Without volunteers the money is of little use and without the money volunteers will have a lesser effect. To qualify one as more valuable than the other is only a way of alienating people away from giving their time or their treasures.
The issue with Zuckerberg is a complicated one to tackle. On the one hand, it is tough to know someone’s true intentions. He could be an extremely generous philanthropist, or he could be a selfish billionaire trying to avoid taxes. I would lean towards some combination of both being true. If the money is going towards the service of others and can dramatically impact lives, then I am all for it. As a businessman, I am sure he is not giving away such a fortune without seeing anything in return for doing so, so I would expect him to in some way benefit from such a contribution. However, if he is truly trying to help other people, who are we to judge?
I had a similar reaction when reading The Way to Produce a Person. I, too, believe that money is certainly equally valuable as time. Both can help further any program and help accomplish the goals of any organization. I do, however, understand Brooks’s argument that people may become more invested in their daily job, because that is simply expected when most of one’s time is invested into anything. At the same time, just because one is working hard to earn money, as long as they are investing some of that money into a good cause it is still honorable that they are doing so. Each person involved in giving does not have to be the one to make key decisions as to where the money is going to go and how exactly to further the cause; as long as that is getting done somehow they should not be deemed lesser for donating money opposed to time.
ReplyDeleteA website I came across on the subject (http://genxfinance.com/giving-to-charity-time-vs-money/) took a different approach. It discussed the benefits of both types of contributions and, rather than debating which was better or worse, they encouraged people to pick which worked best for them. It mentioned that not everybody has the fiscal means to donate money in which case their time is just as valuable. While Brooks basically chose time over money, both are certainly valuable and would be appreciated by any organization.
Jillian, you raise many very interesting points. I’ve never considered that donating to a specific cause might, in fact, be harmful to the progress of that cause. In the case of donating towards foreign aid in Africa, in an economic perspective, flooding the economy with foreign money actually depreciates the national currency and therefore negatively affects the nation’s economy in many ways. However, I believe that if someone is offering assistance in some way, there are ways to allocate aid in such a way where the economy is not disrupted and the people of that nation benefit. This could take the form of investing in local businesses by buying their products, building local incubators to stimulate economic growth, or even as far as donating money and resources towards a specific altruistic cause such as building orphanages in areas without one.
ReplyDeleteAs for the media, unfortunately in this world, startling news begs viewers’ attention. Therefore the media covers only drastic, major events or issues affecting Africa (or anywhere else in the world). Thus, the viewers beget a biased tunnel vision of what African countries and people need. Meanwhile, tackling issues in Africa that are actually strategically possible to solve become second on the list. In this case, media is a negative attractor. It forces the eye away from solvable problems and exacerbates issues that no other outside nations have any business forming further externalities.