|
Issues: Poverty
|
| |
Not so long ago, I spent a year living and working in Ghana. It was dusty, the people were frequently confusing, and the local cuisine was a rich source of starch and oil. But it was a lot of fun, and I look back on the time (and the people I met) fondly.
While misunderstandings between the locals and I were a common occurrence, we collectively understood one thing very well: that taxi drivers are scum. There are no meters or fixed prices in Ghanaian taxis, and every discussion commences with an absurdly high initial price offer from the driver, and a similarly unreasonable lowball payment offer from the prospective passenger. Much arm-waving and feigned expressions of shock emanate from both sides, often for minutes at a time. The driver remains adamant that a 10 minute trip takes 30, while the passenger is convinced that peak hour is a myth created by taxi drivers to harm the nation. If you’re merely a bystander, it’s some of the best street theatre around.
After initial reluctance (read: middle class guilt), I took to the sport of bickering with taxi drivers most enthusiastically. There would be pretend walk-offs, raised voices, and allegations that the driver is a “foolish man” (which ranks highly among Ghanaian insults). As the title of this entry suggests, I did indeed spent 15 minutes arguing over a sum of money that was around a dollar. More than once. Unlike your average Ghanaian, the dollar wasn’t of particular significance to me. Food (bristling with starch and oil) would be on my table that night either way.
So why did I have so many bees in my bonnet? Why would a man even wear a bonnet, especially one that attracted bees?
Many times in the past, I had criticised western tourists in developing countries who indulge in haggling with local sellers over sums of money that matter a lot to the seller, and not at all to the buyer. It appeared to be little more than a disposable income power play, bolstering the ego of a tubby idiot with freshly braided hair and fake designer sunglasses. It effectively mocked poverty... sought to entrench it. Whether or not this scenario is a metaphor for quite a number of recent free trade agreements negotiated between a rich country and a poor country is a matter I’ll leave to you.
Back to the taxis and my bees. But I don’t want any more talk about my bonnet.
The economist-in-me-that-I-can’t-always-switch-off was wondering whether giving $5 for the $4 trip would mean that the new baseline price for everyone would be $5. Would my capacity to buy my way out of an argument affect affordable transport for everyone else?
Or maybe it wouldn’t affect cash-strapped local taxi passengers... perhaps the driver was only trying to game me because I happened to be white. If the colours or tables were turned, such a thing would be held up as scandalous racism. Do I want to reward someone’s notion that some people should pay more than others for an identical service, solely based on their appearance? Is it a taxi driver’s place to decide that I must? In my home country, this concept of fairness is legally enforced via the requirement for metered fares.
And so I spent 15 minutes haggling on the side of the road. Haggling to receive access to the same fair price that the locals paid. Haggling to be equal. It’s entirely consistent with the complaints that many developing countries have about the uneven playing field of global trade and protectionism.
But instead of opening up another area of dispute with the driver, I settled for my $1 taxi saving, and was driven to do you thinkthe pub.
What do you think - is it right to haggle over a dollar? |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
I'll be living below the line this year for the Somaly Mam Foundation - an organization that rescues girls from commercial sex work and provides a safe haven for victims of abuse or those at high-risk for trafficking. The foundation's namesake Somaly Mam survived a past of sex slavery and now dedicates her life to activism in her native Cambodia and the world.
I am particularly drawn to the work of this organization after my sister and I had the chance to visit Cambodia last December. We rented bicycles and spent three, hot, sweaty, glorious days exploring the vast rocky temples of Angkor Wat. According to UNICEF, over a quarter of all Cambodians live under the extreme poverty line and because of that, hordes flock to Angkor to hawk souvenirs - ranging from postcards to toenail clippers to wide-brimmed hats - fresh fruit and cold drinks. Tourists arriving at any temple could be guaranteed to be greeted by about 50 vendors, mostly children, who wouldn't take no for an answer. The theme song for the temples could easily be "Everyday I'm Hustling."
By day three, my sister and I were exhausted and we had become somewhat apathetic to such situations. So we asked a waitress how we could convince the peddlers to leave us be. She taught us the local phrase (phonetically) "Auk Men Loi" - basically "I have no money."
Auk Men Loi became our shield. Whenever we went, we needed only to utter it and vendors would part like oil on water, occasionally wide-eyed or giggling at our apparen
fluency. We were gods.
Then we biked to a somewhat secluded temple and a handful of very young children dashed forward with offers of cocoanuts and key chains. "Auk Men Loi," I said, casting it out like a force-field. One girl - no more than seven years old - placed tiny fists on her hips. She cocked her head. "You have money and you don't spend on me. It's okay."
Her words broke through my Auk Men Loi barrier. With her clumsy constructed English sentences, she had managed to sum up our existences perfectly. I had money. I had things. I had a bicycle and a backpack full of snacks and a key for a hotel room with A/C and a shower. She had some key chains to sell and tattered clothes.
However, that was okay. She recognized that although unfair, this was how things were. It's okay that we have the privileges and luxuries that we have. Living with my own entitlement has been a struggle I've dealt with for years, and here this small girl who had so little was trying to absolve me of my guilt. We in America are so lucky to have the things we have, and yet it's okay that we enjoy them.
But, it's also okay if - for just a little while - we put such things aside and try in a small way to understand the lives of others. It's okay that search out alternatives to the unjust systems that keep such poverty in our world. It's okay that we share this message with whoever will hear it, so someday all Cambodians will see Angkor as a place to celebrate their history and not a marketplace from which to eke out an existence.
Because 1.4 billion people live on under a 1.50 a day. Because 22,000 children die from hunger or other preventable diseases every day. Because 1 out of 3 women will be abused, beat or coerced into sex in her lifetime.
And that is not okay.
That little girl from Angkor may never be a victim of trafficking or sexual abuse, but I am grateful that organizations like Somaly Mam will be there to protect her and others throughout Cambodia. I'll be living below the line for Somaly Mam because it's not okay for girls to be denied those basic safeties of childhood.
I hope you'll be joining me. Chose a charity that captures your heart, share this journey with those you live and work with, and tell the world you have no appetite for apathy. |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
What makes people do the right thing? What motivates people to buy Fairtrade, volunteer their time or help the homeless person on the street? Much more research has been devoted to the psychology of what drives us to buy certain products, than a close look at the incentives and mindset of philanthropy, altruism and positive social engagement. The resulting deficit has left us with a widening gap between the increasingly sophisticated appeal of global brands and the hackneyed approaches from non-profit organizations who often still lead with the starving child crudely pasted to the rattling cup.
As Global Poverty Project rolls out its Global Citizen engagement platform, some in the development sector are suspicious of the idea of offering rewards for signing petitions and sharing YouTube clips with friends. They see the idea of T-shirts and concert tickets as the equivalent of offering children sweets for good behaviour. Critics see it as the latest brand of ‘clicktivsim’ or just feeding the rampant consumerism that underpins some of the global imbalance. Buying ethical products or telling friends about water issues in Nairobi should not need to be incentivized, so they say, as it’s the right thing to do. According to these naysayers, people should do the right thing, because it’s the right thing, end of story. Eat your broccoli and no complaints.
But to this soup of metaphors and old adages, allow me to add one more; the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and expect a different result. The development sector has been showing us the image of the starving child for over 40 years. It’s been an effective motivator for a small percentage of the population as a prick to their conscience and a tug on their heartstrings to drop a few coins in the cup and assuage the guilt the image deliberately stirs.
We should all applaud the efforts of these organizations who have helped millions of people with limited funding in impossible circumstances. Through their tireless and underpaid efforts, they have fed, clothed, healed and educated generations of people around the world. Certainly there are signs of progress as the Millennium Development Goals encourage more targeted, better development, and the percentage of people living in extreme poverty has more than halved since 1983.
Despite this progress in the methods and strategies for poverty eradication in the developing world, the fundamental relationship between the average citizen in London or New York to the problems of the world remain frozen in the transactional and simplistic paradigm of “GIVE MONEY, SAVE KIDS”.
For a dramatic expansion of the efforts to end extreme poverty, what’s needed is a game-changing shift in this predictable dynamic. The critics of innovation or change to this status quo are afraid of rocking the boat for fear of diminishing the ‘anti-poverty brand’ by making it ‘rewards’ focused.
The efforts of these organizations are funded by the same percentage of bleeding hearts who continue to dig into their pockets when they see an appeal. What’s needed is not a new way of tapping those loyal supporters, but a dramatic and engaging way of expanding the number of supporters. Not only that, but the development sector needs a way to redefine the word ‘supporter’ from the person who writes a cheque, to the person who’s inspired by the stories of innovation and resilience and leads others to focus their unique skills to helping the world’s poor.
Global Citizen has the potential to be the innovation the sector desperately needs. It encourages people to learn more about the issues, creates a structure for discussing and sharing relevant content and takes people on a journey to better understand the policies, institutions and actions that will lead us to a more just and sustainable world.
As people get started on this journey, sometimes the first step is the hardest one to take. Global Citizen does dangle rewards as the ‘carrot’ to get started. The rewards platform plays to the human impulse that asks, “What’s in it for me?” but hopes that by going a mile or two down the road of global citizenry, the answers, definitions and even the questions themselves will change.
Teenagers might just watch a few films about extreme poverty to earn concert tickets. No one expects that to change the world, but it does plant seeds that may grow to great things. For some of those teenagers, the films might be the start of a lifelong commitment to social justice. For others it might be the inspiration that goes on to spark unimagined innovation. Global Citizen might awaken the Nelson Mandelas and Martin Luther King Jr.s of the future. In addition to reporting the world as it is, Global Citizen implicitly invites us all to imagine the world as it should be. |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The Development and Aid World News Service (DAWNS) and the advocacy platform GlobalCitizen.org, today announced the winners of the Humanitarian Reporting Grant Competition. The Competition honored independent projects that focused on telling stories related to humanitarian issues.
Over the course of three weeks, nearly 700 voters cast their ballots for 12 finalists to receive one of two $1,000 grants funded by GlobalCitizen.org and subscription sales to the DAWNS Digest global news curation service.
The two winners of the Humanitarian Reporting Grant Competition are:
Regina's project, ‘know herStory,’ will narrate 15 personal and unique stories of grassroots women leaders involved in community mobilization, HIV/AIDS, peace building, social justice, and human rights advocacy in Cameroon. Shanoor will document the lives of sexworkers in Mumbai, India, to tell the stories of their lives with a particular focus on the relationships these women have with their children.
“Our goal is to create a community of news consumers who will support compelling storytelling on critical global issues that do not often make headlines,” said DAWNS co-founder Mark Leon Goldberg.
"We hope these stories inspire Global Citizens to discover the diversity of skills and passions that are needed to end extreme poverty,” said Jordan Hewson, editor of GlobalCitizen.org. “We each can find a role to play in this movement, and these candidates have done exactly that."
The finalists included journalists, photographers, and documentary filmmakers from around the world who wanted to tell a range of stories, from gender discrimination in Gambia, to the problem of female foeticide and abandonment in India.
“It is becoming increasingly hard for reporters to bring stories to wide audiences as the journalism industry faces further and further cuts,” said Tom Murphy, co-Founder of DAWNS. “We have to find ways to report more, not less, on the global issues of poverty, violence and disease. These grants seek to support journalists and storytellers so that these important stories can be told.”
More information about the Humanitarian Reporting Grant Competition can be found at www.GlobalCitizen.org.
For further information please contact Jane Atkinson, GPP Global Director of Communications: jane.atkinson@globalpovertyproject.com or for media inquiries: Gingold@sunshinesachs.com |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
We dare your office to Live Below the Line.
The Live Below the Line: Corporate Challenge Day will be a one-day event where companies across the nation will show support in raising awareness and funding to end extreme poverty. On April 30, 2013 the employees of participating companies will eat and drink on $1.50 a day for one full day, while fundraising and supporting one of our charity partners.
We have 11 different charity partners for whom you can fundraise. By participating in Live Below the Line: Corporate Challenge Day, your company will be featured on various social media platforms. Top fundraising corporate teams will be advertised on GlobalCitizen.org and included on our press-releases. The Live Below the Line campaign team will provide various resources and support for best practice on fundraising and marketing.
Participating in the Live Below the Line challenge provides companies with an excellent opportunity to demonstrate corporate social responsibility and inspire team-building within the office.
How To Sign-Up?
Email gpp_usa@globalpovertyproject.com for instructions!
|
Posted by Judith Rowland in Poverty for column Live Below the Line on Mar 12th, 05:24 |
|
|
|
|
