The Jan. 8 Metro article about corporate philanthropy, “Group finds homes for discarded purchases,” warmed the heart in many ways, but it also raised questions about the intent and impact of this charity. The highlighted example was the distribution of hats and shirts from the Super Bowl (preprinted celebrations of the losing team’s victory) to “needy families” living “in the Middle East and Africa.” As Good360’s chief executive put it, “If there’s a saving grace for the non-winners in those games, it should be that a deserving person somewhere is still going to get a great hat.”
Are there needy families whose needs are met by the reception of “a great hat”? Undoubtedly, many of these gifts are used and appreciated, but as charity goes, it seems as though there might be higher needs (food, shelter) that aren’t being met by discarded Super Bowl souvenirs.
But much worse, free goods distributed in the name of charity can be counterproductive. What happens to the small businesses in these places that are manufacturing and selling clothing locally? How can they compete with similar goods that are free?
Following the 2010 earthquake in Haiti, aid groups responded by distributing free rice to thousands of people. As a short-term response, this was lifesaving. But the distribution of free rice continued after the immediate need waned, driving local rice farmers, distributors and vendors out of business, leaving the local economy worse off.
Creative charities might look for ways to support local economies rather than undercut them by giving away trinkets that are, as the article noted, “now-useless.”
Phillip Wilbur, Arlington