Is Foreign Aid a Sacred Cow? | by Victor V. Claar

Below is a commentary written by Victor Claar and published by PovertyCure’s parent organization, the Acton Institute. The commentary addresses a letter written by leaders of the ministry and NGO world that urged the United States Congress to protect federal funding for foreign aid from budget cuts. Several PovertyCure friends and partners signed this letter. Our hope in posting this commentary is to kindly remind them and our readers why entrepreneurship, economic growth, and a focus on the creative capacity of the poor, not foreign aid, is the best path forward to realizing a world without extreme poverty.

Our aim is not to promote nor defend any particular legislative agenda. Our aim is simply to add our view to the larger conversation about the merits and deficiencies of foreign aid.


In case you missed it – understandably – in the barrage of news stories and Saint Patrick’s Day posts last week, a group of 106 faith leaders have collaborated on a letter they have signed and sent to the Democrat and Republican leadership of both houses of Congress. The letter implores Congress not to reduce the size of the U.S. International Affairs Budget, and was occasioned by President Donald J. Trump’s proposed budget for the coming fiscal year.

Since the final passage of the Budgeting and Accounting Act of 1921, the president has been charged with delivering a proposed budget to Congress no later than the first Monday in February. Far from final, this “executive budget” usually serves as a starting point for budgetary discussions and negotiations.

In Trump’s proposed budget, he asks Congress for a $10.9 billion reduction – roughly 28 percent – of the funds currently allocated to international diplomatic and aid programs, and channeled through institutions such as the State Department and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Though these numbers sound large, keep in mind that the overall federal budget lies north of $3 trillion, making the share of federal budget funds devoted to international affairs – currently around $50 billion — less than one percent of total spending. Along with proposed cuts elsewhere, the suggested reduction in the portion of the budget designated for international affairs would be reallocated to Trump’s proposed increases in national defense.

The president is not the first to suggest that cuts to international affairs spending might be worth considering. Late last year the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) specifically evaluated reductions in international affairs funds as one of several options aimed at deficit reduction over the next ten years. In their proposal, international affairs funding would be reduced by 25 percent: not far off from the president’s own proposed reduction, albeit with a different goal.

In weighing costs versus benefits of such a cut, the CBO cites a June 2016 Congressional Research Service report that concluded, “In most cases, clear evidence of the success or failure of U.S. assistance programs is lacking, both at the program level and in aggregate.” The report explains why in its summary:

… historically, most aid programs have not been evaluated for the purpose of determining their actual impact. Many programs are not even evaluated on basic performance. The purpose and methodologies of foreign aid evaluation have varied over the decades, responding to political and fiscal circumstances … Persistent challenges to effective evaluation include unclear aid objectives, funding and personnel constraints, emphasis on accountability for funds, methodological challenges, compressed timelines, country ownership and donor coordination commitments, security, and agency and personnel incentives. As a result of these challenges, aid agencies do not undertake evaluation of all foreign aid activities, and evaluations, when carried out, may differ considerably in quality.

While the Congressional Research Service and the CBO humbly confess they simply do not know whether, or to what extent, international aid results in better outcomes – either for us or for the rest of the planet’s population – the 106 faith leaders mentioned above appear quite certain in their claim that, with a mere one percent of the federal budget, “the International Affairs Budget has helped alleviate the suffering of millions; drastically cutting the number of people living in extreme poverty in half, stopping the spread of infectious diseases like HIV/AIDs and Ebola, and nearly eliminating polio.”

These are bold claims — especially given the ambivalence of the CBO and the Congressional Research Service regarding the alleged impact of initiatives like direct aid.

While many of the world’s politicians would like to take credit for cutting extreme global poverty in half in just 20 years, and the aforementioned faith leaders seem quite ready to thank politicians for their achievements, the source of this success is far simpler: economic growth. As the Economist magazine has put it, “ … the biggest poverty-reduction measure of all is liberalising markets to let poor people get richer. That means freeing trade between countries … and within them.”

It hasn’t been aid that has lifted people out of poverty, but trade and access to markets.

And such economic growth normally occurs most easily in places that possess a few essential elements that provide a fertile environment in which economic growth can take hold: rule of law; private property; free association and exchange; access to markets; a culture of trust; and a vital network of churches, communities, and cultures that encourage respect for the dignity of the human person.

This is not to say that there is no role for foreign partners, whether private or public ones, in helping the remaining “bottom billion” forge a pathway out of poverty. For example, in an NBER working paper prepared for the World Economic Forum, Elsa Artadi and Xavier Sala-i-Martin identify some of the key factors that continue to hold back many African nations, including “low levels of education, poor health, adverse geography, closed economies, too much public expenditure and too many military conflicts.” We will need to think far more creatively, and be far more patient, as we work to overcome obstacles like these that lie along the pathways out of poverty for much of Africa.

Let me be clear: I am not arguing either for or against the president’s proposals regarding international affairs. I am merely pointing out that the faith leaders’ claim that the U.S. International Affairs Budget has cut global poverty in half grossly overstates what government aid alone can accomplish.

 

Header image used under Creative Commons license (CC BY-SA 2.0), some modifications made.

Victor V. Claar is professor of economics at Henderson State University, the public liberal arts university of Arkansas. He is a coauthor of Economics in Christian Perspective: Theory, Policy, and Life Choices, and author of the Acton Institute’s Fair Trade? Its Prospects as a Poverty Solution

Imago Dei and Implications for Poverty

 

The idea that all humans are “created equal” would have struck most peoples of the ancient world as ludicrous, since humans are obviously not equal in wealth, rank or natural abilities. Aristotle merely summarized conventional wisdom when he asserted that some are fitted to serve as slaves while others are born with the natural capacity and authority to rule. As sociologist and historian Rodney Stark notes, the institution of slavery was universal for most of human history.

The idea of human equality, however, received a foothold in Western thought from the Hebrew idea that every human is created in the image of God (Imago Dei) and so possesses inherent dignity and worth. This understanding was reinforced by the specifically Christian doctrine that God entered human history as a man, died for the sins of all humanity, and that in Christ “there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free.”

Imago Dei Becoming a Reality in History

These ideas worked in the face of hatred, greed, and hypocrisy to gradually improve the rights of medieval European peasants, and to undergird the abolition movements of England, Europe, and the United States. The idea also can have an important role in helping the poor and oppressed of today’s world to achieve liberty and flourish.

When our poverty-fighting ideas are founded up the fact that all people are made in the image of God and are therefore, created equal, we realize that we must abandon paternalism and embrace partnership. We further realize that poverty does not exist due to people’s incapacity. Instead, our focus shifts to the fact that people are poor because they are excluded from circles of exchange, living without the rule of law, cannot get title to their property, and cannot access justice in the courts.

Stewards in the Image of God

The biblical account of humans made in the image of God also undergirds the idea of humans as stewards of the rest of creation. It’s been argued that the West is the first civilization in history to extend the rights of private property to a substantial percentage of its members, in part because of this idea that humans are made in the image of God and given stewardship responsibility by God.

This view of the human person suggests that such people are meant to have a stewardship responsibility over what has come into their possession by honest means, a responsibility that should be honored and encouraged by the state rather than violated. This view of the human person also emphasizes the creative capacity of humans, since they are understood to be made in the image of the Creator.

Implications for Poverty

Materialist anthropologies have tended to lapse into fixed-pie or zero-sum-game thinking when it comes to questions of wealth and poverty. In this view, people are reduced to mouths to feed with ever-decreasing amounts of resources. Alternatively, the Judeo-Christian understanding of humans sees people as sub-creators that have the ability to innovate and take resources and make them stretch further than could ever have been done in the past. When we rightly see all people as Imago Dei, the battle against poverty gets brighter.

 

Top 10 PovertyCure Videos for 2017

We wanted to make sure to highlight PovertyCure’s top 10 videos from 2016 so if you have not seen them yet, you can easily do so now! Check out the list below and watch them all today!

#1 – Poverty, Inc. Official Trailer

Drawing from over 200 interviews filmed in 20 countries, Poverty, Inc. unearths an uncomfortable side of charity we can no longer ignore. From TOMs Shoes to international adoptions, from solar panels to U.S. agricultural subsidies, “Poverty, Inc.” challenges each of us to ask the tough question: Could I be part of the problem?

#2 – Microfinance 101

Microfinance is most often equated with microcredit, but it’s more than that. In this video clip from the PovertyCure DVD Series, microfinance experts Ebow Graham, Muhammad Yunus, and Damian von Stauffenburg flesh out the bigger picture.

# 3 – PovertyCure – From Aid To Enterprise [Full Version]

PovertyCure is an international network of organizations and individuals seeking to ground our common battle against global poverty in a proper understanding of the human person and society, and to encourage solutions that foster opportunity and unleash the entrepreneurial spirit that already fills the developing world.

#4 – Charity that Hurts – Clips from PovertyCure Episode 1

A billion people around the world live in extreme poverty. For Christians, addressing this problem is a nonnegotiable; it is an essential element of our faith. But having a heart for the poor isn’t enough. In fact, sometimes, with the best of intentions, we actually do more harm than good. Unfortunately, in our filming and research, we found story after story of not-so-positive, unintended consequences of many charity and aid projects around the world. If we really care about our brothers and sisters in the developing world, we have learn from our mistakes. We must use our minds to unite our desire to help others with our knowledge of the social, economic, political, and spiritual foundations of human flourishing.

In this session, we will analyze the two major forms of international development assistance, private charity and government-to-government foreign aid, and hear what the indigienous leaders and recipients of such assistance have to say about it — the good, the bad, and the ugly.

#5 – PovertyCure – a Six Part DVD Series [Extended]

PovertyCure is thrilled to present our new, six-episode DVD series on human flourishing. Three years in the making, this high-energy, 152-minute documentary-style series challenges conventional thinking and reframes the poverty debate around the creative capacity of the human person, made in the image of God. Listen to the voices of entrepreneurs, economists, political and religious leaders, missionaries, NGO workers, and everyday people as host Michael Matheson Miller travels around the world to discover the foundations that allow human beings, families, and communities to thrive.

# 6 – Ghanaian Entrepreneur: Growth Hindered by Foreign Aid

In this clip from the PovertyCure DVD Series (see http://www.povertycure.org/dvd-series/), Ghanaian software entrepreneur Herman Chinery-Hesse describes how foreign aid can often inhibit growth for local businesses.

“When elephants fight, the grass suffers… political parties rely on foreign aid more than tax revenue so they are more interested in a smile on the World Bank country director’s face than the success of my business.” — Herman Chinery Hesse, Ghanaian Software Entrepreneur

#7 – Theodore Dalrymple on the Capacity of the Poor

“The first thing I would say to those who say that we must come and give, otherwise these people are incapable of improving their situation or getting out of their poverty, is to ask them why…Why are these people uniquely unable to get out of their poverty? Is there not evidence, in fact, that when given the opportunity, they do in fact, uh, get out of poverty themselves?” – Theodore Dalrymple, Writer and Psychiatrist (UK)

#8 – Does Globalism Destroy Culture?

“The globalization of business, of trade, of the exchange of goods and services is the best way to protect cultures, because it supports and encourages individual prosperity, the right of every person to be able to go out and have the freedom to fail, or the freedom to achieve, the freedom to be able to participate in a global economy.” — Declan Ganley

#9 – A Kenyan Professor’s Call to Action – Poverty, Inc.

Following the Colorado Premiere of Poverty, Inc. at Starz Denver Film Festival, Dr. M.D. Kinoti, PhD immediately approached Mark R. Weber about setting up a screening at Regis University. A native of Kenya with decades of experience in international development, Dr. Kinoti knows better than most the adverse effects of the poverty industrial complex and the need to re-think the way we address people in the developing world.

“As an African, having grown up in rural village in Kenya and poor, and having worked two decades in the development sector for big NGOs such as World Vision, I cannot stress enough the importance of the ideas presented in this film for our students and faculty.” – Dr. Kinoti

#10 – Robert Woodson on Effective Charity

Bob Woodson explains the problem with the ‘therapeutic model’ of many social service programs and charity organizations, which threaten the human dignity of the recipient by seeing them as helpless in their poverty. People feel most dignified and least degraded when they earn the things they have, not when they are given things. Hand-outs often reinforce the problem of dependency and the unequal provider/recipient or therapist/client relationship that is intrinsic to the therapeutic model of charity.

Watch more of our videos on our YouTube Channel!  Happy New Year!

Top 5 PovertyCure Blogs Post for 2016

top-5-blog-posts-of-2016-1

 

As we close out the year, we want to thank our PovertyCure blog readers for reading and contributing to our blog.  If you’re a new reader we encourage you to catch up by checking out our top 5 most popular posts for 2016:

  1. Three Reasons to Stop Focusing on Children | by Peter Greer

When an organization, particularly a residential care institution, focuses exclusively on providing for children, over-extended parents are more likely to send their children away, assuming that their sons and daughters will have better access to care and opportunities at an institution, rather than in their family’s home. Parents are trying to do what’s best for their children. But studies show a disturbing trend: children in these situations become more, not less, vulnerable. The trauma of being separated from their families and the impersonal attention that they may receive at an institution can make them more likely to experience developmental delays, difficulty forming attachments, exploitation, and abuse.

  1. The Importance of Private Property | by Jonathan Moody

The rights and responsibilities of private property must be supported.  One of the crucial lessons of development economics is that the poor cannot create wealth for themselves and their families without secure property rights.  The Judeo-Christian tradition provides powerful resources for encouraging the property rights of the rich and poor alike.  It shows that private property is not an artifact of greed and possessiveness, as many believe, but rather a legitimate institution rooted in our role as stewards of what God has entrusted to each of us.

  1. Principles of Effective Compassion | by Patrick Oetting

If government were to reduce its role – or at least slow the growth of programs – in the charity sector, churches and private charities could in turn fully assume the role that they were created for – to help those in their community. Some argue that this may result in less money dedicated to the poor. But, I counter that any reduction would be offset by the targeted nature of the benefits. Subsidiarity works because locals have access to specifically local information. So, benefits are designed specifically to address the specific needs of specific people in a specific community. Simply put, local givers give more efficient gifts – especially when compared to the current, bloated, top down approach in which one size is assumed to fit all.

  1. The Question I Hoped I’d Never Hear from Someone Living in Poverty | by Becky Svendsen

One minute, I was alone … and the next, I was overrun. While I was answering emails on the last day of a trip to visit savings groups in India, teenage girls suddenly swarmed into my bedroom unannounced, covering giggles with their hands.

These girls—who lived at the orphanage next to my guesthouse—asked to see my clothes and touch my hair and page through my books. They called me “sister” and showed me how to wear the sari I bought that week, explaining that only married women wore saris. Whoops! They acted shy at first but were soon gently elbowing each other out of the way to have me photograph them by the window.

  1. An Inconvenient Truth about Development Work | by Peter Johnson

Occasionally, development work and development workers can be agents of social justice. Unfortunately, it was my experience both in Paraguay, South America, and later in Senegal, West Africa, that development initiatives often do not foster social justice. In fact, development work sometimes contravenes social justice precisely because the industry buys into the sentimentalized version of the world’s poor.

American Economic Nationalism Hurts Developing Countries | by Kyle Hanby

 Pic by Neil Palmer (CIAT). A farmer at work in Kenya's Mount Kenya region. From Wikipedia, sharing according to the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/

The idea that the United States should operate as a self-sustaining nation and non-reliant on the production of goods from foreign countries would not only be disastrous for the United States but could create huge road blocks for developing countries. When the ideas of protectionism and economic nationalism rise to the forefront of public policy discussions within the United States, only the harm or benefit to the United States is mentioned. There is no shortage of commentary from experts and economists that discuss these effects. What is not often discussed is the damage protectionist policies have on the economic growth of developing nations.

Perhaps the reason people rarely ever comment on the effects of American economic nationalism on foreign economies is because that might come across as putting the well-being of another country before the United States. The truth is, when one country works its way through the development stages it does not come at the expense of other countries.

An “America first” approach to our economy is actually harmful. Acton Institute Director of Research Samuel Gregg frequently writes about this. One of his more recent articles at The Stream titled ‘It May Sound Good, But Economic Nationalism Will Not Make America Great’ discusses all the ways that a move toward economic nationalism will only damage the U.S. economy in the long-run. But not only will it hurt the United States, it will also put every developing country that benefits from free trade with the United States in a worse situation. To countries that are still developing, this could be detrimental.

The United States has formal trade relations with more than 75 different countries around the world. A lot of those countries are in Africa and South America and several of them are by no means first world developed countries. What is the best thing the United States can do to help them develop? Trade with them.

There is no doubt about the contributions that free trade has on the development of a country. Ghanaian software entrepreneur Herman Chinery-Hesse stated this fact well in the Acton Institute’s Poverty, Inc. documentary: “I have never heard of a country that developed on aid. If you have heard of one, let me know! I know about countries that developed on trade, and innovation, and business. I don’t know of any country that got so much aid that it suddenly became a first world country. I have never heard of such a country.”

Of the $34 billion of foreign aid that the United States is planning to give out in 2017, $3.6 billion will be earmarked for economic development. It is clear that the U.S. government does not understand Chinery-Hesse’s message.

Free trade generates economic growth and economic growth is the key to the development of any country. This is why developing countries rely on free trade to develop and if the United States decides to withdraw from this trade then we are sending a message to those countries that we do not want to partner with them in their development.

Trade is a mutually beneficial activity and protectionist policies are mutually harmful.  If the United States really wants to help developing countries we should open our markets to them. And as Christians, we should be eager to engage in economic activity with our brothers and sisters across the globe, because when we do, it gives them greater opportunities to flourish.

Photo for Acton Announcement

Kyle Hanby is a Liberty@Work Associate at the Acton Institute.  He is a former University Relations Intern at the Charles Koch Institute in Arlington, Virginia.  He holds a bachelor’s degree in economics and finance from Bethel College in Mishawaka, Indiana where he chaired the American Enterprise Institute Executive Council and was a 4 year member of the men’s varsity tennis team.

**Picture by Neil Palmer (CIAT). A farmer at work in Kenya’s Mount Kenya region.  From Wikipedia, sharing according to the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/

Three Ways to ReThink Non-Profit Marketing | by Isaac Barnes

hopeint-photo

 

In its short history, the modern nonprofit has shifted through a few marketing tactics. The 1980s disaster appeals used guilt-inducing shock imagery to raise funds for charity. Since the 1990s, nonprofit best practices trend toward more positive images and stories, showing happy people with at least some degree of agency. And in a more recent trend, some nonprofits communicate less about the needs of the people they serve, focusing more on stories and images of Western donors fundraising and doing things on behalf of others.

In my experience, rarely does a nonprofit’s actual marketing content—images, graphics, videos, stories, and appeal messaging—receive as much scrutiny as their programmatic work.

It’s a tough balancing act to show the oppression of poverty without exploiting those living in it or oversimplifying its complexity. Books like Walking with the Poor and When Helping Hurts have begun to challenge Christian nonprofits and churches to rethink how they understand poverty and relate to people living in material poverty. These same insights and spiritual frameworks should also shape the stories and images of nonprofit marketing. When nonprofit communications are naively positive, sensationally guilt-inducing, or exclusively reflective of Western supporters’ actions, they misrepresent people living in poverty and cheat supporters of the opportunity to mutually engage in poverty alleviation.

In my job as a writer at HOPE International, I’m still learning how to balance the need to ethically represent the families we serve and inspire and educate people—all in 50 words or less. From Instagram posts to printed reports, here are three ways I’ve changed how I communicate:

Name people and places in photos:

All too often, pictures of nonprofit beneficiaries are treated like stock photography, without a name or location to inform readers who they are or where they are. Even if a nonprofit has consent to use the person’s photo, to the reader, the person on the page is left nameless and, thus, they remain distant and unknowable. Naming someone is dignifying and, in a relational way, brings them closer, allowing your reader to feel mutual affinity and connection rather than distant pity.

Use direct quotes:

First, to get direct quotes, you must listen. The “be a voice for the voiceless” mantra has never sat well with me—everyone has a voice and will speak if listened to with respect. Prioritizing direct quotes in storytelling better represents those you’re writing about—whether supporters, partners, or people served—and elevates their voice.

Show people in action:

Pictures powerfully shape how we see our world, especially places we’ve never experienced. The style and content of nonprofit photography not only represents the people and places they serve, it also positions supporters’ responses to and understanding of poverty around the world. Portrait shots can be beautifully dignifying, but they lack the action and context that shows the initiative and hard work of so many people living in poverty. Active photography—showing people in their homes, with family, in the community, and at work—can help foster a deeper sense of mutual partnership between beneficiaries and supporters.

Better, more ethical and empowering nonprofit marketing doesn’t happen by accident. It takes intentionality, resources, and time to build the space and systems to listen to people and retell their stories with dignity. If nonprofits are dedicated to quality programs and work, then their marketing and communications should be held to similar standards.

isaac-barnes

Isaac Barnes joined HOPE International’s writing team in 2013. Since then, he’s enjoyed telling the incredible stories of HOPE-network clients and creatively communicating about Christ-centered microenterprise development.

Attacking the “Missing Middle” With an Arrow | by Andrew Vanderput

threejobs-blog

If you have watched the PovertyCure DVD series or followed our blog for long, you have likely encountered an important issue called the “Missing Middle.” In his new book, Three Jobs: Bridging the Finance Gap for the Missing Middle, Chad Jordan reminds us of why small to medium enterprises (SMEs) are so key in leading developing countries out of poverty:

“SMEs are the universal building blocks of any economy. The United States is a prime example. Business Insider reports that 60-80% of new jobs in the U.S. come from small businesses [SMEs], and that 57% of the United States’ workforce is employed by small business with less than 500 employees. The biggest economy in the world is propped up by small business. Even further, research states that more than 51% [or higher] of the GDPs of so called “developed” countries are composed of SMEs, while only 16% of the GDPs of emerging nations are composed of SMEs.”

In other words, small to medium businesses are absolutely essential to creating robust employment levels in both developed and developing countries alike. The problem is that developing countries simply do not have enough SMEs to provide widespread employment and prosperity.

Why The Missing Middle Exists

After establishing why SMEs are so crucial to true economic development, Jordan explains why these same businesses cannot get access to the capital they need to scale and grow their enterprise. One big causation of the missing middle is the overemphasis on microfinance and the disregard for SME finance. Jordan states:

“What hasn’t received as much attention, however, is SME finance – it’s that sector wedged in between microfinance and full commercial access, i.e., the missing middle. As such, the sector’s banking capacity isn’t very developed – rates and collateral requirements are high while trust is low. Very few entrepreneurs in this missing middle finance gap can gain appropriate access to the growth capital they need, leaving them few options to scale.”

“That is why the missing middle is such a big problem. If an entire nation’s small businesses can’t access growth capital, the economy of that nation can never reach its potential, leaving the unemployment rates high, GDPs low, and small business stuck on a plateau.”

Arrow Global Capital’s Solution

With the problem firmly established, Jordan goes on in Three Jobs to describe how his organization, Arrow Global Capital, will seek to provide financing for the very companies who have the potential to produce the number of jobs that are desperately needed in the developing world. At risk of oversimplifying its promising model, Arrow acts as the bridge between philanthropic investors that possess capital, banks within developing nations, and “local accelerators” that train and identify the local entrepreneurs who are ready to scale. Jordan hopes that with access to previously unavailable capital, these enterprises will end up employing hundreds of people, not just a few as microloans commonly do.

Asking The Right Question

By targeting a key root of global poverty, lack of stable employment, Arrow is answering the question that should always be asked in the first place: How do we enable the material poor to create wealth for themselves, their families, and their communities? Arrow’s answer: Attack the problem of the missing middle by providing the previously inaccessible capital that will enable small to medium enterprises in developing nations that are primed and ready to grow and create the jobs the poor need and want. Solutions like these that recognize the creative capacities of people, are free of paternalism, rely on local partners for knowledge, and focus on employment, are the solutions that will truly transform the world.

Notes:

To learn more about the missing middle, check out our video on the missing middle. To learn more about Chad Jordan’s new book, Three Jobs, click here.

andrew-bio-picture

Andrew Vanderput is the Strategy and Engagement Manager at PovertyCure, an initiative of the Acton Institute. Andrew comes from a diverse background in public policy, non-profits focused on international poverty, marketing, and consulting. He has long held a passion for promoting entrepreneurial solutions to poverty. He lives with his wife and two children in Grand Rapids, MI.

 

Changing the Perception of Work | by Chad Jordan

chad-jordan-blog-header

Let’s talk about jobs. Sure, work might not be the most thrilling narrative, but I promise to do my best to make it a little more exciting.

What’s a root cause of individuals and families not having education and healthcare access? What’s a key reason for food insecurity? Lack of stable income. And where can one find consistent income? A job. You see where I’m going with this?

Lack of consistent, stable income is one of the key roots of systemic poverty. If families had access to stable income, they could afford to pay school fees, take their children to a clinic if they’re sick, make sure they eat three meals a day.

A job is a lifeline. Though it’s a single person working that job, the effects it has on family and community members is astounding. It means the difference between sending your children to bed hungry or with a full belly.

But how do we promote jobs, employment, dignity in Africa or Central America or South Asia? Wouldn’t it be easier to focus on an education platform or a healthcare clinic or a feeding program? The answer is that it’s not easy to focus on job creation, and yes, it would be simpler to work on a less daunting program. The point here is not to take away from those great organizations working on education, healthcare, or food. They are needed and valuable to create infrastructure, but they’re not a solution to poverty in themselves.

The truth is that community transformation, national transformation, regional transformation will only come from economic engagement. Gone are the days where we can ignore the economy with our efforts to “help,” because including the economy is, in fact, the only way to make lasting progress. I believe we have to attack the root of poverty if we ever want to do anything about it, and unleashing the power of jobs is an essential way to do that.

Attacking poverty with jobs? Again, sounds kind of boring, difficult, even misguided. Go ask someone stuck in the grips of poverty what they most want in the world. Did you do it? I guarantee you the answer was “a job.” Stable employment is the way to build a better future for yourself, your family, your community, your nation.

Taking this whole crazy idea even further, we have to identify the visionaries who will help create the jobs we’re talking about for unskilled workers who might not otherwise have a place to turn. Not everyone can (poof) create jobs out of thin air. But entrepreneurs have the ideas and innovations — the grit — to create opportunity for members of their communities.

We have to identify the entrepreneurs, who when enabled to scale their businesses, can create more jobs, more security, more access for those stuck in cyclical poverty. These men and women are catalysts in this endeavor of putting people to work. They are the local heroes we can help support (read: not direct) as they do what they know how to do: business.

The long and short of all this is that we need to find ways to support business innovation, scaling, and training as a means to job creation, which is the way for families and communities to transform their norm and get out of systemic patterns of poverty.

Our team at Arrow has chosen to focus on global job creation by building an investment platform to link altruistically-motivated investors in the United States with growth-ready entrepreneurs in Central America and Africa. How will you support work, jobs, and stable income for families around the globe?

chad

Chad Jordan is the author of Shut Up & Give?, ReThink Missions, and Three Jobs, as well as the co-founder & CEO of Arrow Global Capital and the founder of Cornerstone International.  He is a 2016 Under 30 NextGen Award winner and holds a bachelor’s and master’s degree from The George Washington University in Washington, D.C.

What I Missed by Trying to Play the Poverty Hero | by Sarah Ann Schultz

hopeint-blog

At 20 years old, I made what seemed like a simple decision: I decided to take a semester off of college to live in Uganda for four months.  Brimming with evangelical zeal, I was ready to change the world. Armed with a backpack full of knee-length skirts and malaria meds, I told myself I was prepared and ready for the challenge whatever that would be.

Spiritual guns blazing, we came into the rural town where we were based eager to affect change. All my plucky self-assurance quickly deflated when I saw that poverty was far more complex than I had imagined from the air-conditioned safety of my American home.

Not surprisingly, I grew increasingly frustrated with the limited change we were seeing, frustrated that all of my prayers and relationship-building weren’t enough to change the community. My self-imposed burden of “changing the world” began to suffocate me as I saw that it wasn’t a challenge I could shoulder on my own. Four months later, I came back to the U.S. broken over the weight of what I had experienced.

Let me be clear: I do believe the world can change. In fact, I cling to the deep conviction that God has not given up on this world that He made—and neither should we. But in putting myself in the role of hero, I missed out on the dignity and worth of the very people I was trying to serve. I made assumptions about their needs and desires rather than pausing to listen.

On a recent trip to the Republic of Congo through my work with HOPE International, I entered into conversations with Congolese friends eager to listen. In setting aside what I thought people needed, I got to hear remarkable stories about how communities are changing from the inside—how Sophie, a HOPE client in Brazzaville, uses her knitting business to mentor young mothers and train them in a practical skill; how Moise continues to give of his time and resources to other farmers despite facing some hefty challenges of his own; how Gilbert started a music center as a conduit to teaching his community about worshiping God through music. What Ugandan passions, talents, and gifts did I miss out by assuming that my team had all the answers?

And more importantly, I’ve recognized that while God’s people can be agents of reconciliation on earth, we are not the saviors I once thought we could be. In thinking I could change the world, I missed out on seeing God’s redeeming power on this earth that He created.

“He who was seated on the throne said, ‘I am making everything new!’ Then he said, ‘Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.’”-Revelations 21:5

shultz-sarah-ann

Sarah Ann Schultz has served as a writer with HOPE since 2014, telling the stories of HOPE clients in marketing and development communications. A North Carolina native, Sarah Ann currently lives in Lancaster, PA, and spends her time traveling, reading, hiking, and laughing at her own jokes.

How We Can Break Free of the Handout Mentality | by Andrew Vanderput

andrew-blog

Handouts can be a pretty contentious term. Hopefully my next statements will help ensure that I do not increase that contention. When you saw  “handout mentality” you might have thought I was referring to the material poor. Actually, I was referring to you. More on that later.

For the sake of this article, let’s define handouts as the provision of resources to people in material poverty without any expectation that the recipients will need to invest their own time or other assets in order to receive those same resources in the first place. Note: Relief or aid given to people immediately after a manmade or natural disaster would not fall under our definition of handouts.

We know that handouts as defined above can be ineffective and damaging. They can create dependency and destroy initiative in the recipients. Why develop your own talents and work to become independent when you know you will be provided for free of cost? Because of this, recipients will become chronically reliant upon their patrons and will never be able flourish themselves, let alone help their communities do the same.

There are a myriad of other reasons handouts are damaging that we could discuss, but I want to get back to you. While handouts can be destructive, it is the views that undergird handouts that are even more pernicious. To be more specific, it is how you see the people you want to help that causes the damage. This may sound tangential but it is not. It is crucial. How you view people will invariably dictate and shape your efforts to help them.

If you only and ever see people as incapable, helpless, unable to contribute, and even burdensome then your actions will naturally flow from that perspective and inform your poverty fighting efforts. You will not partner with the poor, you will patronize them. You will only see their lack, so you will give shortsightedly. This errant view of the material poor is the handout mentality.

Please do not automatically dismiss this point or see it as irrelevant to you. While you may think you do not see the material poor in such light or would never dream of doing so, subconsciously you may. When examined carefully, the causes you give to, and the way you have gone about addressing poverty will tell you a lot about how you see the poor. Given enough critical thought, you might realize you have a handout mentality.

How do we break free of this mentality? We must change our thinking so that the material poor are seen as they truly are: Created by God and fellow bearers of His image. As people full of potential and endowed with incredible, creative abilities. As savvy and entrepreneurial. As partners. As equals.

When you begin to view the poor like this, everything changes. You are no longer focused on lack, want, or deficit. You only see assets, potential, and opportunity. You see all of the enterprise and business opportunities you can support. You no longer see yourself or your institution as the answer. You realize they are the answer. You break free of your handout mentality.

andrew-bio-picture

Andrew Vanderput is the Strategy and Engagement Manager at PovertyCure, an initiative of the Acton Institute. Andrew comes from a diverse background in public policy, non-profits focused on international poverty, marketing, and consulting. He has long held a passion for promoting entrepreneurial solutions to poverty. He lives with his wife and two children in Grand Rapids, MI.