Quote:
|
Thanks, interesting to know.
|
Another thing about microloans:
There are people who don't want to get charity money and want to pay back the money. There are traditional cultures where receiving something without giving something back is looked down upon.
Another thing about microloan is that a lot of them go to women. I once read that the number are over 90% for the Grameen bank. A lot of them didn't have money before that they owned (the man in the house owned everything).
A talk from one of the Grameen people (the Grameen bank was the first microloaning organisation) is on Ted especially the beginning gives a good perspective about poverty and about what's wrong with traditional charity:
Iqbal Quadir says mobiles fight poverty | Video on TED.com Quote:
When you donate money, a huge percentage goes to administrative bureaucratic processes, and benefits are minimal.
I would advise to do the charity yourself to save that money and make it more effective.
|
Money that is invested with long term plans by an organisation that keeps the whole communitie in mind can be more effective than the same amount of money, when that money is given out without big plans.
Organisations can focus capital on issues.
Without an organsation that creates the infrastrucure that necessary, there no way that a normal person could get say ten of those operations that Seva does for 500 dollar.
There are benefits of scale.
What brings a better effect, spending 50 or even 30 dollar for fixing the eyesight of a person or spending the same amount for toys for kids who live in a first world country?
I think that even through Seva spends money on administration the money is still used more efficiently.
Scale allows higher efficienty even through you need organisation that has a bit of bureaucratic "waste" to get scale.