One Day Without Shoes
I got an email today about TOMS One Day Without Shoes. According to http://www.onedaywithoutshoes.com, today is "the day we spread awareness of the impact a pair of shoes can have on a child’s life by taking off our own. Why? Millions of children live without proper footwear, exposing them to injury and disease every day." I think this is a reasonable thing for our community to discuss, so I've put my response to that email below. Any thoughts on One Day Without Shoes or the TOMS model? I'd love some pushback... ---------------------------------------- As your friendly neighborhood global development cynic, I should point out that in places I've worked (mostly East Africa), shoes are widely available and very affordable. Even if shoes were not readily available, going barefoot is the least of the concerns of folks who live in these communities where health and employment are the biggest problems. And so what makes this TOMS advertising campaign frustrating to me is that it's been shown that donations of clothing and shoes destroy economies in these very communities. This year there was a campaign called "A Day Without Dignity" that touched on some of these issues. "Why has it become so easy for people to start feel-good campaigns that no one asked for? There are a thousand things this village needs and nowhere on the list are t-shirts and shoes..." -- TMS Ruge from Uganda at http://projectdiaspora.org/wp-content/2011/04/05/shoes-the-least-of-our-prob... "TOMS, there are many ways for you to really make a difference. Invest in and share your expertise with local shoe businesses, leading to sustainable jobs. Donate some of your profits to support educational institutions, leading to more opportunities. These are things that people want, and promote their dignity. If you're not willing to do that, please drop your current marketing approach which oversells your impact, encourages self-absorbed charity, and is an affront to the dignity of the materially poor." -- Marshall Birkey at http://marshallbirkey.com/economic-development/aidwars-toms-shoes-vs-dignity... If you are interested, you can find out more at http://goodintents.org/in-kind-donations/a-day-without-dignity and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EaSlKqs6Fo I do think it's important to raise awareness, but it's also important to be cautious when it comes to issues of global development. It's almost always more complicated than it seems.
It's a marketing campaign - nothing more - for ugly shoes at that. In the process, it trivializes development with the message to just buy or send product. At least they are new shoes. "Donate old [whatever]" are the worst. Wayan -- ----------------------------- Wayan Vota Mobile: +1.202.746.8269 Skype/Twitter: wayan_vota Facebook: http://fb.me/wayan.vota On Apr 10, 2012, at 17:24, Yaw Anokwa <yanokwa@gmail.com> wrote:
I got an email today about TOMS One Day Without Shoes.
According to http://www.onedaywithoutshoes.com, today is "the day we spread awareness of the impact a pair of shoes can have on a child’s life by taking off our own. Why? Millions of children live without proper footwear, exposing them to injury and disease every day."
I think this is a reasonable thing for our community to discuss, so I've put my response to that email below. Any thoughts on One Day Without Shoes or the TOMS model? I'd love some pushback...
----------------------------------------
As your friendly neighborhood global development cynic, I should point out that in places I've worked (mostly East Africa), shoes are widely available and very affordable. Even if shoes were not readily available, going barefoot is the least of the concerns of folks who live in these communities where health and employment are the biggest problems. And so what makes this TOMS advertising campaign frustrating to me is that it's been shown that donations of clothing and shoes destroy economies in these very communities.
This year there was a campaign called "A Day Without Dignity" that touched on some of these issues.
"Why has it become so easy for people to start feel-good campaigns that no one asked for? There are a thousand things this village needs and nowhere on the list are t-shirts and shoes..." -- TMS Ruge from Uganda at http://projectdiaspora.org/wp-content/2011/04/05/shoes-the-least-of-our-prob...
"TOMS, there are many ways for you to really make a difference. Invest in and share your expertise with local shoe businesses, leading to sustainable jobs. Donate some of your profits to support educational institutions, leading to more opportunities. These are things that people want, and promote their dignity. If you're not willing to do that, please drop your current marketing approach which oversells your impact, encourages self-absorbed charity, and is an affront to the dignity of the materially poor." -- Marshall Birkey at http://marshallbirkey.com/economic-development/aidwars-toms-shoes-vs-dignity...
If you are interested, you can find out more at http://goodintents.org/in-kind-donations/a-day-without-dignity and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EaSlKqs6Fo
I do think it's important to raise awareness, but it's also important to be cautious when it comes to issues of global development. It's almost always more complicated than it seems.
_______________________________________________ change mailing list change@change.washington.edu http://changemm.cs.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/change
A thought or two: 1. "going barefoot is the least of the concerns of folks who live in these communities where *health *and employment are the biggest problems" - The website actually lists health* *as a major reason why they want to supply shoes. You mention East Africa and Hookworm is a real problem there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hookworm_disease_world_map_-_DALY_-_WHO200... There are long term impacts to an individual who is left untreated for hookworm and can potential stunt someones both physical and mental development. Clearly not a good thing for 'development'. Additionally, the disease is spread by not wearing shoes and stepping in contaminated matter - this wouldn't be a problem if they were wearing shoes. 2. I've heard the argument before that giving T-shirts or shoes etc destroy the local economy. I understand the logic, but does anyone have a source or data to back it up? And why can't their be room for both? Someone who is focused on giving and someone else who is focused on building the economy etc. Does giving shoes really destroy a local economy? 3. I remember quite well the whole 'million t-shirts for Africa' I'm not going to write what I want to, but essentially I felt the whole thing was juvenile. On all sides. It seemed like some sort of peculiar 'turf war' over development. Anyway, I suppose my ultimate thought is that this might not be the most effective form of 'development' but I'm not sure how much it really matters. I'm certainly more of a 'trade' guy, but I think there is room for both. Essentially, are the shoes or t-shirts for Tanzania or Bangladesh or Bolivia really a problem that needs to be addressed? And, my second thought is that it appears to me that getting people shoes who don't have them and/or perhaps simply encouraging their wear, might ultimately be pretty helpful in combating some serious disease problems - and therefore development as well. Ok. I'm done. Just drove for 10 hours and was feeling punchy. -Nate On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Yaw Anokwa <yanokwa@gmail.com> wrote:
I got an email today about TOMS One Day Without Shoes.
According to http://www.onedaywithoutshoes.com, today is "the day we spread awareness of the impact a pair of shoes can have on a child’s life by taking off our own. Why? Millions of children live without proper footwear, exposing them to injury and disease every day."
I think this is a reasonable thing for our community to discuss, so I've put my response to that email below. Any thoughts on One Day Without Shoes or the TOMS model? I'd love some pushback...
----------------------------------------
As your friendly neighborhood global development cynic, I should point out that in places I've worked (mostly East Africa), shoes are widely available and very affordable. Even if shoes were not readily available, going barefoot is the least of the concerns of folks who live in these communities where health and employment are the biggest problems. And so what makes this TOMS advertising campaign frustrating to me is that it's been shown that donations of clothing and shoes destroy economies in these very communities.
This year there was a campaign called "A Day Without Dignity" that touched on some of these issues.
"Why has it become so easy for people to start feel-good campaigns that no one asked for? There are a thousand things this village needs and nowhere on the list are t-shirts and shoes..." -- TMS Ruge from Uganda at
http://projectdiaspora.org/wp-content/2011/04/05/shoes-the-least-of-our-prob...
"TOMS, there are many ways for you to really make a difference. Invest in and share your expertise with local shoe businesses, leading to sustainable jobs. Donate some of your profits to support educational institutions, leading to more opportunities. These are things that people want, and promote their dignity. If you're not willing to do that, please drop your current marketing approach which oversells your impact, encourages self-absorbed charity, and is an affront to the dignity of the materially poor." -- Marshall Birkey at
http://marshallbirkey.com/economic-development/aidwars-toms-shoes-vs-dignity...
If you are interested, you can find out more at http://goodintents.org/in-kind-donations/a-day-without-dignity and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EaSlKqs6Fo
I do think it's important to raise awareness, but it's also important to be cautious when it comes to issues of global development. It's almost always more complicated than it seems.
_______________________________________________ change mailing list change@change.washington.edu http://changemm.cs.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/change
Ok. Thx. From: change-bounces@change.washington.edu [mailto:change-bounces@change.washington.edu] On Behalf Of Nathan Barthel Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 5:29 PM To: Change Group Subject: Re: [change] One Day Without Shoes A thought or two: 1. "going barefoot is the least of the concerns of folks who live in these communities where health and employment are the biggest problems" - The website actually lists health as a major reason why they want to supply shoes. You mention East Africa and Hookworm is a real problem there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hookworm_disease_world_map_-_DALY_-_WHO200... There are long term impacts to an individual who is left untreated for hookworm and can potential stunt someones both physical and mental development. Clearly not a good thing for 'development'. Additionally, the disease is spread by not wearing shoes and stepping in contaminated matter - this wouldn't be a problem if they were wearing shoes. 2. I've heard the argument before that giving T-shirts or shoes etc destroy the local economy. I understand the logic, but does anyone have a source or data to back it up? And why can't their be room for both? Someone who is focused on giving and someone else who is focused on building the economy etc. Does giving shoes really destroy a local economy? 3. I remember quite well the whole 'million t-shirts for Africa' I'm not going to write what I want to, but essentially I felt the whole thing was juvenile. On all sides. It seemed like some sort of peculiar 'turf war' over development. Anyway, I suppose my ultimate thought is that this might not be the most effective form of 'development' but I'm not sure how much it really matters. I'm certainly more of a 'trade' guy, but I think there is room for both. Essentially, are the shoes or t-shirts for Tanzania or Bangladesh or Bolivia really a problem that needs to be addressed? And, my second thought is that it appears to me that getting people shoes who don't have them and/or perhaps simply encouraging their wear, might ultimately be pretty helpful in combating some serious disease problems - and therefore development as well. Ok. I'm done. Just drove for 10 hours and was feeling punchy. -Nate On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Yaw Anokwa <yanokwa@gmail.com<mailto:yanokwa@gmail.com>> wrote: I got an email today about TOMS One Day Without Shoes. According to http://www.onedaywithoutshoes.com, today is "the day we spread awareness of the impact a pair of shoes can have on a child's life by taking off our own. Why? Millions of children live without proper footwear, exposing them to injury and disease every day." I think this is a reasonable thing for our community to discuss, so I've put my response to that email below. Any thoughts on One Day Without Shoes or the TOMS model? I'd love some pushback... ---------------------------------------- As your friendly neighborhood global development cynic, I should point out that in places I've worked (mostly East Africa), shoes are widely available and very affordable. Even if shoes were not readily available, going barefoot is the least of the concerns of folks who live in these communities where health and employment are the biggest problems. And so what makes this TOMS advertising campaign frustrating to me is that it's been shown that donations of clothing and shoes destroy economies in these very communities. This year there was a campaign called "A Day Without Dignity" that touched on some of these issues. "Why has it become so easy for people to start feel-good campaigns that no one asked for? There are a thousand things this village needs and nowhere on the list are t-shirts and shoes..." -- TMS Ruge from Uganda at http://projectdiaspora.org/wp-content/2011/04/05/shoes-the-least-of-our-prob... "TOMS, there are many ways for you to really make a difference. Invest in and share your expertise with local shoe businesses, leading to sustainable jobs. Donate some of your profits to support educational institutions, leading to more opportunities. These are things that people want, and promote their dignity. If you're not willing to do that, please drop your current marketing approach which oversells your impact, encourages self-absorbed charity, and is an affront to the dignity of the materially poor." -- Marshall Birkey at http://marshallbirkey.com/economic-development/aidwars-toms-shoes-vs-dignity... If you are interested, you can find out more at http://goodintents.org/in-kind-donations/a-day-without-dignity and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EaSlKqs6Fo I do think it's important to raise awareness, but it's also important to be cautious when it comes to issues of global development. It's almost always more complicated than it seems. _______________________________________________ change mailing list change@change.washington.edu<mailto:change@change.washington.edu> http://changemm.cs.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/change
Hello I am from East Africa, and my family could afford shoes. Unfortunately at one point in primary (for 2 years) I had to go to school barefoot because that was what my headteacher thought was a good school policy. later on as a clinician working in many remote parts of the country, including Narok among Maasai community famous for wearing the 'Akalas' ( http://www.uzanunua.com/listing/5324-akala-open-shoes/) ; at one point a fashion statement, I am yet to see anyone die from hookworm infestation Malnutrition, pneumonia, measles, malaria, Diarrhoea diseases remain leading killers of under 5 year olds. And ultimately better facilities with oxygen and critical care, safe and efficient blood processing facilities, and provision of essential drugs may avert these untimely deaths. The solution is not as simple as my statement, but 3 monthly deworming of children as part of schools programs i think can better control diseases like hookworm without having people walk barefoot. I think its time to get our priorities right, there are real problems that we can help in these areas and leave people feeling dignified. My 2 cents Judy On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:29 PM, Nathan Barthel <nbarthel@codedincountry.org
wrote:
A thought or two:
1. "going barefoot is the least of the concerns of folks who live in these communities where *health *and employment are the biggest problems" - The website actually lists health* *as a major reason why they want to supply shoes. You mention East Africa and Hookworm is a real problem there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hookworm_disease_world_map_-_DALY_-_WHO200... There are long term impacts to an individual who is left untreated for hookworm and can potential stunt someones both physical and mental development. Clearly not a good thing for 'development'. Additionally, the disease is spread by not wearing shoes and stepping in contaminated matter - this wouldn't be a problem if they were wearing shoes.
2. I've heard the argument before that giving T-shirts or shoes etc destroy the local economy. I understand the logic, but does anyone have a source or data to back it up? And why can't their be room for both? Someone who is focused on giving and someone else who is focused on building the economy etc. Does giving shoes really destroy a local economy?
3. I remember quite well the whole 'million t-shirts for Africa' I'm not going to write what I want to, but essentially I felt the whole thing was juvenile. On all sides. It seemed like some sort of peculiar 'turf war' over development.
Anyway, I suppose my ultimate thought is that this might not be the most effective form of 'development' but I'm not sure how much it really matters. I'm certainly more of a 'trade' guy, but I think there is room for both. Essentially, are the shoes or t-shirts for Tanzania or Bangladesh or Bolivia really a problem that needs to be addressed? And, my second thought is that it appears to me that getting people shoes who don't have them and/or perhaps simply encouraging their wear, might ultimately be pretty helpful in combating some serious disease problems - and therefore development as well.
Ok. I'm done. Just drove for 10 hours and was feeling punchy. -Nate
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Yaw Anokwa <yanokwa@gmail.com> wrote:
I got an email today about TOMS One Day Without Shoes.
According to http://www.onedaywithoutshoes.com, today is "the day we spread awareness of the impact a pair of shoes can have on a child’s life by taking off our own. Why? Millions of children live without proper footwear, exposing them to injury and disease every day."
I think this is a reasonable thing for our community to discuss, so I've put my response to that email below. Any thoughts on One Day Without Shoes or the TOMS model? I'd love some pushback...
----------------------------------------
As your friendly neighborhood global development cynic, I should point out that in places I've worked (mostly East Africa), shoes are widely available and very affordable. Even if shoes were not readily available, going barefoot is the least of the concerns of folks who live in these communities where health and employment are the biggest problems. And so what makes this TOMS advertising campaign frustrating to me is that it's been shown that donations of clothing and shoes destroy economies in these very communities.
This year there was a campaign called "A Day Without Dignity" that touched on some of these issues.
"Why has it become so easy for people to start feel-good campaigns that no one asked for? There are a thousand things this village needs and nowhere on the list are t-shirts and shoes..." -- TMS Ruge from Uganda at
http://projectdiaspora.org/wp-content/2011/04/05/shoes-the-least-of-our-prob...
"TOMS, there are many ways for you to really make a difference. Invest in and share your expertise with local shoe businesses, leading to sustainable jobs. Donate some of your profits to support educational institutions, leading to more opportunities. These are things that people want, and promote their dignity. If you're not willing to do that, please drop your current marketing approach which oversells your impact, encourages self-absorbed charity, and is an affront to the dignity of the materially poor." -- Marshall Birkey at
http://marshallbirkey.com/economic-development/aidwars-toms-shoes-vs-dignity...
If you are interested, you can find out more at http://goodintents.org/in-kind-donations/a-day-without-dignity and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EaSlKqs6Fo
I do think it's important to raise awareness, but it's also important to be cautious when it comes to issues of global development. It's almost always more complicated than it seems.
_______________________________________________ change mailing list change@change.washington.edu http://changemm.cs.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/change
_______________________________________________ change mailing list change@change.washington.edu http://changemm.cs.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/change
-- Judy
Re: Shoes destroying economies I don't have any data on local shoe production. The closest thing I've found has to do with clothing. In "Used-Clothing Donations and Apparel Production in Africa", Frazer reports, "Used-clothing imports are found to have a negative impact on apparel production in Africa, explaining roughly 40% of the decline in production and 50% of the decline in employment over the period 1981–2000." http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2008.02190.x/full Re: Why not do both kinds of aid The world only has so many resources (money, time, attention, etc) to devote to problems. Why spend the time and energy on things that we know don't make a difference (but do make us feel good about ourselves). That is, maybe we should be focusing on getting local workers to build latrines and wells instead of using those same resources to ship shoes and shirts to Africa. On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 18:08, judy wawira <judywawira@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello
I am from East Africa, and my family could afford shoes. Unfortunately at one point in primary (for 2 years) I had to go to school barefoot because that was what my headteacher thought was a good school policy.
later on as a clinician working in many remote parts of the country, including Narok among Maasai community famous for wearing the 'Akalas' (http://www.uzanunua.com/listing/5324-akala-open-shoes/) ; at one point a fashion statement, I am yet to see anyone die from hookworm infestation
Malnutrition, pneumonia, measles, malaria, Diarrhoea diseases remain leading killers of under 5 year olds. And ultimately better facilities with oxygen and critical care, safe and efficient blood processing facilities, and provision of essential drugs may avert these untimely deaths. The solution is not as simple as my statement, but 3 monthly deworming of children as part of schools programs i think can better control diseases like hookworm without having people walk barefoot.
I think its time to get our priorities right, there are real problems that we can help in these areas and leave people feeling dignified.
My 2 cents
Judy
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:29 PM, Nathan Barthel <nbarthel@codedincountry.org> wrote:
A thought or two:
1. "going barefoot is the least of the concerns of folks who live in these communities where health and employment are the biggest problems" - The website actually lists health as a major reason why they want to supply shoes. You mention East Africa and Hookworm is a real problem there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hookworm_disease_world_map_-_DALY_-_WHO200... There are long term impacts to an individual who is left untreated for hookworm and can potential stunt someones both physical and mental development. Clearly not a good thing for 'development'. Additionally, the disease is spread by not wearing shoes and stepping in contaminated matter - this wouldn't be a problem if they were wearing shoes.
2. I've heard the argument before that giving T-shirts or shoes etc destroy the local economy. I understand the logic, but does anyone have a source or data to back it up? And why can't their be room for both? Someone who is focused on giving and someone else who is focused on building the economy etc. Does giving shoes really destroy a local economy?
3. I remember quite well the whole 'million t-shirts for Africa' I'm not going to write what I want to, but essentially I felt the whole thing was juvenile. On all sides. It seemed like some sort of peculiar 'turf war' over development.
Anyway, I suppose my ultimate thought is that this might not be the most effective form of 'development' but I'm not sure how much it really matters. I'm certainly more of a 'trade' guy, but I think there is room for both. Essentially, are the shoes or t-shirts for Tanzania or Bangladesh or Bolivia really a problem that needs to be addressed? And, my second thought is that it appears to me that getting people shoes who don't have them and/or perhaps simply encouraging their wear, might ultimately be pretty helpful in combating some serious disease problems - and therefore development as well.
Ok. I'm done. Just drove for 10 hours and was feeling punchy. -Nate
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Yaw Anokwa <yanokwa@gmail.com> wrote:
I got an email today about TOMS One Day Without Shoes.
According to http://www.onedaywithoutshoes.com, today is "the day we spread awareness of the impact a pair of shoes can have on a child’s life by taking off our own. Why? Millions of children live without proper footwear, exposing them to injury and disease every day."
I think this is a reasonable thing for our community to discuss, so I've put my response to that email below. Any thoughts on One Day Without Shoes or the TOMS model? I'd love some pushback...
----------------------------------------
As your friendly neighborhood global development cynic, I should point out that in places I've worked (mostly East Africa), shoes are widely available and very affordable. Even if shoes were not readily available, going barefoot is the least of the concerns of folks who live in these communities where health and employment are the biggest problems. And so what makes this TOMS advertising campaign frustrating to me is that it's been shown that donations of clothing and shoes destroy economies in these very communities.
This year there was a campaign called "A Day Without Dignity" that touched on some of these issues.
"Why has it become so easy for people to start feel-good campaigns that no one asked for? There are a thousand things this village needs and nowhere on the list are t-shirts and shoes..." -- TMS Ruge from Uganda at
http://projectdiaspora.org/wp-content/2011/04/05/shoes-the-least-of-our-prob...
"TOMS, there are many ways for you to really make a difference. Invest in and share your expertise with local shoe businesses, leading to sustainable jobs. Donate some of your profits to support educational institutions, leading to more opportunities. These are things that people want, and promote their dignity. If you're not willing to do that, please drop your current marketing approach which oversells your impact, encourages self-absorbed charity, and is an affront to the dignity of the materially poor." -- Marshall Birkey at
http://marshallbirkey.com/economic-development/aidwars-toms-shoes-vs-dignity...
If you are interested, you can find out more at http://goodintents.org/in-kind-donations/a-day-without-dignity and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EaSlKqs6Fo
I do think it's important to raise awareness, but it's also important to be cautious when it comes to issues of global development. It's almost always more complicated than it seems.
_______________________________________________ change mailing list change@change.washington.edu http://changemm.cs.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/change
_______________________________________________ change mailing list change@change.washington.edu http://changemm.cs.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/change
-- Judy
_______________________________________________ change mailing list change@change.washington.edu http://changemm.cs.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/change
This is a really interesting conversation that was also covered by Foreign Policy as well. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/10/11/haiti_doesnt_need_your_old_... The article and the comments are pretty interesting. Thought I'd share it with you guys. Best, Mustafa On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:08 PM, Yaw Anokwa <yanokwa@gmail.com> wrote:
Re: Shoes destroying economies
I don't have any data on local shoe production. The closest thing I've found has to do with clothing. In "Used-Clothing Donations and Apparel Production in Africa", Frazer reports, "Used-clothing imports are found to have a negative impact on apparel production in Africa, explaining roughly 40% of the decline in production and 50% of the decline in employment over the period 1981–2000." http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2008.02190.x/full
Re: Why not do both kinds of aid
The world only has so many resources (money, time, attention, etc) to devote to problems. Why spend the time and energy on things that we know don't make a difference (but do make us feel good about ourselves). That is, maybe we should be focusing on getting local workers to build latrines and wells instead of using those same resources to ship shoes and shirts to Africa.
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 18:08, judy wawira <judywawira@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello
I am from East Africa, and my family could afford shoes. Unfortunately at one point in primary (for 2 years) I had to go to school barefoot because that was what my headteacher thought was a good school policy.
later on as a clinician working in many remote parts of the country, including Narok among Maasai community famous for wearing the 'Akalas' (http://www.uzanunua.com/listing/5324-akala-open-shoes/) ; at one point a fashion statement, I am yet to see anyone die from hookworm infestation
Malnutrition, pneumonia, measles, malaria, Diarrhoea diseases remain leading killers of under 5 year olds. And ultimately better facilities with oxygen and critical care, safe and efficient blood processing facilities, and provision of essential drugs may avert these untimely deaths. The solution is not as simple as my statement, but 3 monthly deworming of children as part of schools programs i think can better control diseases like hookworm without having people walk barefoot.
I think its time to get our priorities right, there are real problems that we can help in these areas and leave people feeling dignified.
My 2 cents
Judy
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:29 PM, Nathan Barthel <nbarthel@codedincountry.org> wrote:
A thought or two:
1. "going barefoot is the least of the concerns of folks who live in these communities where health and employment are the biggest problems" - The website actually lists health as a major reason why
they
want to supply shoes. You mention East Africa and Hookworm is a real problem there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hookworm_disease_world_map_-_DALY_-_WHO200...
There are long term impacts to an individual who is left untreated for hookworm and can potential stunt someones both physical and mental development. Clearly not a good thing for 'development'. Additionally, the disease is spread by not wearing shoes and stepping in contaminated matter - this wouldn't be a problem if they were wearing shoes.
2. I've heard the argument before that giving T-shirts or shoes etc destroy the local economy. I understand the logic, but does anyone have a source or data to back it up? And why can't their be room for both? Someone who is focused on giving and someone else who is focused on building the economy etc. Does giving shoes really destroy a local economy?
3. I remember quite well the whole 'million t-shirts for Africa' I'm not going to write what I want to, but essentially I felt the whole thing was juvenile. On all sides. It seemed like some sort of peculiar 'turf war' over development.
Anyway, I suppose my ultimate thought is that this might not be the most effective form of 'development' but I'm not sure how much it really matters. I'm certainly more of a 'trade' guy, but I think there is room for both. Essentially, are the shoes or t-shirts for Tanzania or Bangladesh or Bolivia really a problem that needs to be addressed? And, my second thought is that it appears to me that getting people shoes who don't have them and/or perhaps simply encouraging their wear, might ultimately be pretty helpful in combating some serious disease problems - and therefore development as well.
Ok. I'm done. Just drove for 10 hours and was feeling punchy. -Nate
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Yaw Anokwa <yanokwa@gmail.com> wrote:
I got an email today about TOMS One Day Without Shoes.
According to http://www.onedaywithoutshoes.com, today is "the day we spread awareness of the impact a pair of shoes can have on a child’s life by taking off our own. Why? Millions of children live without proper footwear, exposing them to injury and disease every day."
I think this is a reasonable thing for our community to discuss, so I've put my response to that email below. Any thoughts on One Day Without Shoes or the TOMS model? I'd love some pushback...
----------------------------------------
As your friendly neighborhood global development cynic, I should point out that in places I've worked (mostly East Africa), shoes are widely available and very affordable. Even if shoes were not readily available, going barefoot is the least of the concerns of folks who live in these communities where health and employment are the biggest problems. And so what makes this TOMS advertising campaign frustrating to me is that it's been shown that donations of clothing and shoes destroy economies in these very communities.
This year there was a campaign called "A Day Without Dignity" that touched on some of these issues.
"Why has it become so easy for people to start feel-good campaigns that no one asked for? There are a thousand things this village needs and nowhere on the list are t-shirts and shoes..." -- TMS Ruge from Uganda at
http://projectdiaspora.org/wp-content/2011/04/05/shoes-the-least-of-our-prob...
"TOMS, there are many ways for you to really make a difference. Invest in and share your expertise with local shoe businesses, leading to sustainable jobs. Donate some of your profits to support educational institutions, leading to more opportunities. These are things that people want, and promote their dignity. If you're not willing to do that, please drop your current marketing approach which oversells your impact, encourages self-absorbed charity, and is an affront to the dignity of the materially poor." -- Marshall Birkey at
http://marshallbirkey.com/economic-development/aidwars-toms-shoes-vs-dignity...
If you are interested, you can find out more at http://goodintents.org/in-kind-donations/a-day-without-dignity and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EaSlKqs6Fo
I do think it's important to raise awareness, but it's also important to be cautious when it comes to issues of global development. It's almost always more complicated than it seems.
_______________________________________________ change mailing list change@change.washington.edu http://changemm.cs.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/change
_______________________________________________ change mailing list change@change.washington.edu http://changemm.cs.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/change
-- Judy
_______________________________________________ change mailing list change@change.washington.edu http://changemm.cs.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/change
_______________________________________________ change mailing list change@change.washington.edu http://changemm.cs.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/change
Good Intentions are Not Enough (http://goodintents.org) is a great website that I've found generally has something useful to say about any given popular development movement. I found the article below from a link on that site: "charitable gifts from abroad can distort developing markets and undermine local businesses by creating an entirely unsustainable aid-based economy" http://www.fastcoexist.com/1679628/the-broken-buy-one-give-one-model-three-w... Regards Fritz On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 4:15 AM, Mustafa Naseem <mustafanaseem@gmail.com> wrote:
This is a really interesting conversation that was also covered by Foreign Policy as well.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/10/11/haiti_doesnt_need_your_old_...
The article and the comments are pretty interesting. Thought I'd share it with you guys.
Best, Mustafa
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:08 PM, Yaw Anokwa <yanokwa@gmail.com> wrote:
Re: Shoes destroying economies
I don't have any data on local shoe production. The closest thing I've found has to do with clothing. In "Used-Clothing Donations and Apparel Production in Africa", Frazer reports, "Used-clothing imports are found to have a negative impact on apparel production in Africa, explaining roughly 40% of the decline in production and 50% of the decline in employment over the period 1981–2000." http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2008.02190.x/full
Re: Why not do both kinds of aid
The world only has so many resources (money, time, attention, etc) to devote to problems. Why spend the time and energy on things that we know don't make a difference (but do make us feel good about ourselves). That is, maybe we should be focusing on getting local workers to build latrines and wells instead of using those same resources to ship shoes and shirts to Africa.
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 18:08, judy wawira <judywawira@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello
I am from East Africa, and my family could afford shoes. Unfortunately at one point in primary (for 2 years) I had to go to school barefoot because that was what my headteacher thought was a good school policy.
later on as a clinician working in many remote parts of the country, including Narok among Maasai community famous for wearing the 'Akalas' (http://www.uzanunua.com/listing/5324-akala-open-shoes/) ; at one point a fashion statement, I am yet to see anyone die from hookworm infestation
Malnutrition, pneumonia, measles, malaria, Diarrhoea diseases remain leading killers of under 5 year olds. And ultimately better facilities with oxygen and critical care, safe and efficient blood processing facilities, and provision of essential drugs may avert these untimely deaths. The solution is not as simple as my statement, but 3 monthly deworming of children as part of schools programs i think can better control diseases like hookworm without having people walk barefoot.
I think its time to get our priorities right, there are real problems that we can help in these areas and leave people feeling dignified.
My 2 cents
Judy
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:29 PM, Nathan Barthel <nbarthel@codedincountry.org> wrote:
A thought or two:
1. "going barefoot is the least of the concerns of folks who live in these communities where health and employment are the biggest problems" - The website actually lists health as a major reason why they want to supply shoes. You mention East Africa and Hookworm is a real problem there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hookworm_disease_world_map_-_DALY_-_WHO200... There are long term impacts to an individual who is left untreated for hookworm and can potential stunt someones both physical and mental development. Clearly not a good thing for 'development'. Additionally, the disease is spread by not wearing shoes and stepping in contaminated matter - this wouldn't be a problem if they were wearing shoes.
2. I've heard the argument before that giving T-shirts or shoes etc destroy the local economy. I understand the logic, but does anyone have a source or data to back it up? And why can't their be room for both? Someone who is focused on giving and someone else who is focused on building the economy etc. Does giving shoes really destroy a local economy?
3. I remember quite well the whole 'million t-shirts for Africa' I'm not going to write what I want to, but essentially I felt the whole thing was juvenile. On all sides. It seemed like some sort of peculiar 'turf war' over development.
Anyway, I suppose my ultimate thought is that this might not be the most effective form of 'development' but I'm not sure how much it really matters. I'm certainly more of a 'trade' guy, but I think there is room for both. Essentially, are the shoes or t-shirts for Tanzania or Bangladesh or Bolivia really a problem that needs to be addressed? And, my second thought is that it appears to me that getting people shoes who don't have them and/or perhaps simply encouraging their wear, might ultimately be pretty helpful in combating some serious disease problems - and therefore development as well.
Ok. I'm done. Just drove for 10 hours and was feeling punchy. -Nate
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Yaw Anokwa <yanokwa@gmail.com> wrote:
I got an email today about TOMS One Day Without Shoes.
According to http://www.onedaywithoutshoes.com, today is "the day we spread awareness of the impact a pair of shoes can have on a child’s life by taking off our own. Why? Millions of children live without proper footwear, exposing them to injury and disease every day."
I think this is a reasonable thing for our community to discuss, so I've put my response to that email below. Any thoughts on One Day Without Shoes or the TOMS model? I'd love some pushback...
----------------------------------------
As your friendly neighborhood global development cynic, I should point out that in places I've worked (mostly East Africa), shoes are widely available and very affordable. Even if shoes were not readily available, going barefoot is the least of the concerns of folks who live in these communities where health and employment are the biggest problems. And so what makes this TOMS advertising campaign frustrating to me is that it's been shown that donations of clothing and shoes destroy economies in these very communities.
This year there was a campaign called "A Day Without Dignity" that touched on some of these issues.
"Why has it become so easy for people to start feel-good campaigns that no one asked for? There are a thousand things this village needs and nowhere on the list are t-shirts and shoes..." -- TMS Ruge from Uganda at
http://projectdiaspora.org/wp-content/2011/04/05/shoes-the-least-of-our-prob...
"TOMS, there are many ways for you to really make a difference. Invest in and share your expertise with local shoe businesses, leading to sustainable jobs. Donate some of your profits to support educational institutions, leading to more opportunities. These are things that people want, and promote their dignity. If you're not willing to do that, please drop your current marketing approach which oversells your impact, encourages self-absorbed charity, and is an affront to the dignity of the materially poor." -- Marshall Birkey at
http://marshallbirkey.com/economic-development/aidwars-toms-shoes-vs-dignity...
If you are interested, you can find out more at http://goodintents.org/in-kind-donations/a-day-without-dignity and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EaSlKqs6Fo
I do think it's important to raise awareness, but it's also important to be cautious when it comes to issues of global development. It's almost always more complicated than it seems.
_______________________________________________ change mailing list change@change.washington.edu http://changemm.cs.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/change
_______________________________________________ change mailing list change@change.washington.edu http://changemm.cs.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/change
-- Judy
_______________________________________________ change mailing list change@change.washington.edu http://changemm.cs.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/change
_______________________________________________ change mailing list change@change.washington.edu http://changemm.cs.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/change
_______________________________________________ change mailing list change@change.washington.edu http://changemm.cs.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/change
Aid that fails to empower or enrich a local economy, within their terms, is bad (economic) development, even while being advantageous geopolitically/politically. Much is written about this and the counter campaign to Tom's Shoes campaign is well expressed at A DAY WITHOUT DIGNITY http://goodintents.org/in-kind-donations/a-day-without-dignity. (seconding Fritz' recommendation below). But, do we want to disengage companies and individuals from learning more about how many people on the planet actually live? Is it for entirely cynical reasons that a company like TOMS Shoe's undertakes "A Day without Shoes"? How do we achieve a more just political-economy if not by rewarding companies that "give back"? How realistic is it to move a company from bad development to slightly better development to good development (even when we can entirely agree on that). It's easy to be against it, but I don't believe it's that simple. This past week I heard an inspiring talk by a founder of a US company where the net profits are remitted back to the community, via a democratic vote of the employees and community on their priorities. The primary purpose of that model is actually redistribution of wealth - not to the wealthy class - but to the community at large. Achieving such a model in the international development space seems nearly impossible given all of the forces against it, but a starting point would be to say to TOMS Shoes - instead of giving shoes to a community, why don't you offer them a choice: Either shoes or cash given to specific NGOs or Health Clinics or even, a local shoe production company X? Obviously there are lots of reasons NOT to do that - but channeling the human impulse to help and to feel good about helping is something we should work on in the real world. James On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 5:01 AM, Fritz Meissner <fritz.meissner@gmail.com>wrote:
Good Intentions are Not Enough (http://goodintents.org) is a great website that I've found generally has something useful to say about any given popular development movement. I found the article below from a link on that site:
"charitable gifts from abroad can distort developing markets and undermine local businesses by creating an entirely unsustainable aid-based economy"
http://www.fastcoexist.com/1679628/the-broken-buy-one-give-one-model-three-w...
Regards Fritz
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 4:15 AM, Mustafa Naseem <mustafanaseem@gmail.com> wrote:
This is a really interesting conversation that was also covered by Foreign Policy as well.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/10/11/haiti_doesnt_need_your_old_...
The article and the comments are pretty interesting. Thought I'd share it with you guys.
Best, Mustafa
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:08 PM, Yaw Anokwa <yanokwa@gmail.com> wrote:
Re: Shoes destroying economies
I don't have any data on local shoe production. The closest thing I've found has to do with clothing. In "Used-Clothing Donations and Apparel Production in Africa", Frazer reports, "Used-clothing imports are found to have a negative impact on apparel production in Africa, explaining roughly 40% of the decline in production and 50% of the decline in employment over the period 1981–2000."
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2008.02190.x/full
Re: Why not do both kinds of aid
The world only has so many resources (money, time, attention, etc) to devote to problems. Why spend the time and energy on things that we know don't make a difference (but do make us feel good about ourselves). That is, maybe we should be focusing on getting local workers to build latrines and wells instead of using those same resources to ship shoes and shirts to Africa.
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 18:08, judy wawira <judywawira@gmail.com>
wrote:
Hello
I am from East Africa, and my family could afford shoes. Unfortunately at one point in primary (for 2 years) I had to go to school barefoot because that was what my headteacher thought was a good school policy.
later on as a clinician working in many remote parts of the country, including Narok among Maasai community famous for wearing the 'Akalas' (http://www.uzanunua.com/listing/5324-akala-open-shoes/) ; at one point a fashion statement, I am yet to see anyone die from hookworm infestation
Malnutrition, pneumonia, measles, malaria, Diarrhoea diseases remain leading killers of under 5 year olds. And ultimately better facilities with oxygen and critical care, safe and efficient blood processing facilities, and provision of essential drugs may avert these untimely deaths. The solution is not as simple as my statement, but 3 monthly deworming of children as part of schools programs i think can better control diseases like hookworm without having people walk barefoot.
I think its time to get our priorities right, there are real problems that we can help in these areas and leave people feeling dignified.
My 2 cents
Judy
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:29 PM, Nathan Barthel <nbarthel@codedincountry.org> wrote:
A thought or two:
1. "going barefoot is the least of the concerns of folks who live in these communities where health and employment are the biggest problems" - The website actually lists health as a major reason why they want to supply shoes. You mention East Africa and Hookworm is a real problem there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hookworm_disease_world_map_-_DALY_-_WHO200...
There are long term impacts to an individual who is left untreated for hookworm and can potential stunt someones both physical and mental development. Clearly not a good thing for 'development'. Additionally, the disease is spread by not wearing shoes and stepping in contaminated matter - this wouldn't be a problem if they were wearing shoes.
2. I've heard the argument before that giving T-shirts or shoes etc destroy the local economy. I understand the logic, but does anyone have a source or data to back it up? And why can't their be room for both? Someone who is focused on giving and someone else who is focused on building the economy etc. Does giving shoes really destroy a local economy?
3. I remember quite well the whole 'million t-shirts for Africa' I'm not going to write what I want to, but essentially I felt the whole thing was juvenile. On all sides. It seemed like some sort of peculiar 'turf war' over development.
Anyway, I suppose my ultimate thought is that this might not be the most effective form of 'development' but I'm not sure how much it really matters. I'm certainly more of a 'trade' guy, but I think there is room for both. Essentially, are the shoes or t-shirts for Tanzania or Bangladesh or Bolivia really a problem that needs to be addressed? And, my second thought is that it appears to me that getting people shoes who don't have them and/or perhaps simply encouraging their wear, might ultimately be pretty helpful in combating some serious disease problems - and therefore development as well.
Ok. I'm done. Just drove for 10 hours and was feeling punchy. -Nate
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Yaw Anokwa <yanokwa@gmail.com> wrote:
I got an email today about TOMS One Day Without Shoes.
According to http://www.onedaywithoutshoes.com, today is "the day
we
spread awareness of the impact a pair of shoes can have on a child’s life by taking off our own. Why? Millions of children live without proper footwear, exposing them to injury and disease every day."
I think this is a reasonable thing for our community to discuss, so I've put my response to that email below. Any thoughts on One Day Without Shoes or the TOMS model? I'd love some pushback...
----------------------------------------
As your friendly neighborhood global development cynic, I should point out that in places I've worked (mostly East Africa), shoes are widely available and very affordable. Even if shoes were not readily available, going barefoot is the least of the concerns of folks who live in these communities where health and employment are the biggest problems. And so what makes this TOMS advertising campaign frustrating to me is that it's been shown that donations of clothing and shoes destroy economies in these very communities.
This year there was a campaign called "A Day Without Dignity" that touched on some of these issues.
"Why has it become so easy for people to start feel-good campaigns that no one asked for? There are a thousand things this village needs and nowhere on the list are t-shirts and shoes..." -- TMS Ruge from Uganda at
http://projectdiaspora.org/wp-content/2011/04/05/shoes-the-least-of-our-prob...
"TOMS, there are many ways for you to really make a difference.
Invest
in and share your expertise with local shoe businesses, leading to sustainable jobs. Donate some of your profits to support educational institutions, leading to more opportunities. These are things that people want, and promote their dignity. If you're not willing to do that, please drop your current marketing approach which oversells your impact, encourages self-absorbed charity, and is an affront to the dignity of the materially poor." -- Marshall Birkey at
http://marshallbirkey.com/economic-development/aidwars-toms-shoes-vs-dignity...
If you are interested, you can find out more at http://goodintents.org/in-kind-donations/a-day-without-dignity and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EaSlKqs6Fo
I do think it's important to raise awareness, but it's also
important
to be cautious when it comes to issues of global development. It's almost always more complicated than it seems.
_______________________________________________ change mailing list change@change.washington.edu http://changemm.cs.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/change
_______________________________________________ change mailing list change@change.washington.edu http://changemm.cs.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/change
-- Judy
_______________________________________________ change mailing list change@change.washington.edu http://changemm.cs.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/change
_______________________________________________ change mailing list change@change.washington.edu http://changemm.cs.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/change
_______________________________________________ change mailing list change@change.washington.edu http://changemm.cs.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/change
_______________________________________________ change mailing list change@change.washington.edu http://changemm.cs.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/change
-- James Dailey skype: jdailey
African aid: helpful or hazardous? http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/african-aid-helpful-or-hazardous-0022175 -- Rahul On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 10:30 AM, James Dailey <jamespdailey@gmail.com> wrote:
Aid that fails to empower or enrich a local economy, within their terms, is bad (economic) development, even while being advantageous geopolitically/politically. Much is written about this and the counter campaign to Tom's Shoes campaign is well expressed at A DAY WITHOUT DIGNITY http://goodintents.org/in-kind-donations/a-day-without-dignity. (seconding Fritz' recommendation below).
But, do we want to disengage companies and individuals from learning more about how many people on the planet actually live? Is it for entirely cynical reasons that a company like TOMS Shoe's undertakes "A Day without Shoes"? How do we achieve a more just political-economy if not by rewarding companies that "give back"? How realistic is it to move a company from bad development to slightly better development to good development (even when we can entirely agree on that). It's easy to be against it, but I don't believe it's that simple.
This past week I heard an inspiring talk by a founder of a US company where the net profits are remitted back to the community, via a democratic vote of the employees and community on their priorities. The primary purpose of that model is actually redistribution of wealth - not to the wealthy class - but to the community at large. Achieving such a model in the international development space seems nearly impossible given all of the forces against it, but a starting point would be to say to TOMS Shoes - instead of giving shoes to a community, why don't you offer them a choice: Either shoes or cash given to specific NGOs or Health Clinics or even, a local shoe production company X? Obviously there are lots of reasons NOT to do that - but channeling the human impulse to help and to feel good about helping is something we should work on in the real world.
James
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 5:01 AM, Fritz Meissner <fritz.meissner@gmail.com> wrote:
Good Intentions are Not Enough (http://goodintents.org) is a great website that I've found generally has something useful to say about any given popular development movement. I found the article below from a link on that site:
"charitable gifts from abroad can distort developing markets and undermine local businesses by creating an entirely unsustainable aid-based economy"
http://www.fastcoexist.com/1679628/the-broken-buy-one-give-one-model-three-w...
Regards Fritz
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 4:15 AM, Mustafa Naseem <mustafanaseem@gmail.com> wrote:
This is a really interesting conversation that was also covered by Foreign Policy as well.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/10/11/haiti_doesnt_need_your_old_...
The article and the comments are pretty interesting. Thought I'd share it with you guys.
Best, Mustafa
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:08 PM, Yaw Anokwa <yanokwa@gmail.com> wrote:
Re: Shoes destroying economies
I don't have any data on local shoe production. The closest thing I've found has to do with clothing. In "Used-Clothing Donations and Apparel Production in Africa", Frazer reports, "Used-clothing imports are found to have a negative impact on apparel production in Africa, explaining roughly 40% of the decline in production and 50% of the decline in employment over the period 1981–2000."
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2008.02190.x/full
Re: Why not do both kinds of aid
The world only has so many resources (money, time, attention, etc) to devote to problems. Why spend the time and energy on things that we know don't make a difference (but do make us feel good about ourselves). That is, maybe we should be focusing on getting local workers to build latrines and wells instead of using those same resources to ship shoes and shirts to Africa.
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 18:08, judy wawira <judywawira@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello
I am from East Africa, and my family could afford shoes. Unfortunately at one point in primary (for 2 years) I had to go to school barefoot because that was what my headteacher thought was a good school policy.
later on as a clinician working in many remote parts of the country, including Narok among Maasai community famous for wearing the 'Akalas' (http://www.uzanunua.com/listing/5324-akala-open-shoes/) ; at one point a fashion statement, I am yet to see anyone die from hookworm infestation
Malnutrition, pneumonia, measles, malaria, Diarrhoea diseases remain leading killers of under 5 year olds. And ultimately better facilities with oxygen and critical care, safe and efficient blood processing facilities, and provision of essential drugs may avert these untimely deaths. The solution is not as simple as my statement, but 3 monthly deworming of children as part of schools programs i think can better control diseases like hookworm without having people walk barefoot.
I think its time to get our priorities right, there are real problems that we can help in these areas and leave people feeling dignified.
My 2 cents
Judy
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:29 PM, Nathan Barthel <nbarthel@codedincountry.org> wrote:
A thought or two:
1. "going barefoot is the least of the concerns of folks who live in these communities where health and employment are the biggest problems" - The website actually lists health as a major reason why they want to supply shoes. You mention East Africa and Hookworm is a real problem there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hookworm_disease_world_map_-_DALY_-_WHO200... There are long term impacts to an individual who is left untreated for hookworm and can potential stunt someones both physical and mental development. Clearly not a good thing for 'development'. Additionally, the disease is spread by not wearing shoes and stepping in contaminated matter - this wouldn't be a problem if they were wearing shoes.
2. I've heard the argument before that giving T-shirts or shoes etc destroy the local economy. I understand the logic, but does anyone have a source or data to back it up? And why can't their be room for both? Someone who is focused on giving and someone else who is focused on building the economy etc. Does giving shoes really destroy a local economy?
3. I remember quite well the whole 'million t-shirts for Africa' I'm not going to write what I want to, but essentially I felt the whole thing was juvenile. On all sides. It seemed like some sort of peculiar 'turf war' over development.
Anyway, I suppose my ultimate thought is that this might not be the most effective form of 'development' but I'm not sure how much it really matters. I'm certainly more of a 'trade' guy, but I think there is room for both. Essentially, are the shoes or t-shirts for Tanzania or Bangladesh or Bolivia really a problem that needs to be addressed? And, my second thought is that it appears to me that getting people shoes who don't have them and/or perhaps simply encouraging their wear, might ultimately be pretty helpful in combating some serious disease problems - and therefore development as well.
Ok. I'm done. Just drove for 10 hours and was feeling punchy. -Nate
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Yaw Anokwa <yanokwa@gmail.com> wrote:
I got an email today about TOMS One Day Without Shoes.
According to http://www.onedaywithoutshoes.com, today is "the day we spread awareness of the impact a pair of shoes can have on a child’s life by taking off our own. Why? Millions of children live without proper footwear, exposing them to injury and disease every day."
I think this is a reasonable thing for our community to discuss, so I've put my response to that email below. Any thoughts on One Day Without Shoes or the TOMS model? I'd love some pushback...
----------------------------------------
As your friendly neighborhood global development cynic, I should point out that in places I've worked (mostly East Africa), shoes are widely available and very affordable. Even if shoes were not readily available, going barefoot is the least of the concerns of folks who live in these communities where health and employment are the biggest problems. And so what makes this TOMS advertising campaign frustrating to me is that it's been shown that donations of clothing and shoes destroy economies in these very communities.
This year there was a campaign called "A Day Without Dignity" that touched on some of these issues.
"Why has it become so easy for people to start feel-good campaigns that no one asked for? There are a thousand things this village needs and nowhere on the list are t-shirts and shoes..." -- TMS Ruge from Uganda at
http://projectdiaspora.org/wp-content/2011/04/05/shoes-the-least-of-our-prob...
"TOMS, there are many ways for you to really make a difference. Invest in and share your expertise with local shoe businesses, leading to sustainable jobs. Donate some of your profits to support educational institutions, leading to more opportunities. These are things that people want, and promote their dignity. If you're not willing to do that, please drop your current marketing approach which oversells your impact, encourages self-absorbed charity, and is an affront to the dignity of the materially poor." -- Marshall Birkey at
http://marshallbirkey.com/economic-development/aidwars-toms-shoes-vs-dignity...
If you are interested, you can find out more at http://goodintents.org/in-kind-donations/a-day-without-dignity and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EaSlKqs6Fo
I do think it's important to raise awareness, but it's also important to be cautious when it comes to issues of global development. It's almost always more complicated than it seems.
_______________________________________________ change mailing list change@change.washington.edu http://changemm.cs.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/change
_______________________________________________ change mailing list change@change.washington.edu http://changemm.cs.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/change
-- Judy
_______________________________________________ change mailing list change@change.washington.edu http://changemm.cs.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/change
_______________________________________________ change mailing list change@change.washington.edu http://changemm.cs.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/change
_______________________________________________ change mailing list change@change.washington.edu http://changemm.cs.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/change
_______________________________________________ change mailing list change@change.washington.edu http://changemm.cs.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/change
-- James Dailey skype: jdailey
_______________________________________________ change mailing list change@change.washington.edu http://changemm.cs.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/change
participants (9)
-
Fritz Meissner
-
James Dailey
-
judy wawira
-
Mustafa Naseem
-
Nathan Barthel
-
Rahul Banerjee
-
Scott Barnhart
-
Wayan Vota | Inveneo
-
Yaw Anokwa