While reading the Wall Street Journal today, I came across the following opinion piece:
Summer Jobs for the Guilty Generation
Now let me start with a few things. I feel very qualified to comment on this article. I have been a member of three Habitat for Humanity Global Village trips (including one to Guatemala, the subject of this article) and was the leader of one of these. And since I don't even know what "macrobiotic yogurt" is, clearly I am not a member of the generation he is denigrating! My initial gut reaction after seeing the headline was that the author has no idea what he's talking about, but I must admit that he does make some very valid points. Overall, however, attacking voluntourism as an inefficient economic activity is misguided, short-sighted, and, well...wrong.
First, let's state the obvious: there are a wide range of charities with varying levels of effectiveness. This is exactly what is great about private charity: free choice. In a free market, the more effective charities that spend money efficiently, have a clear message, and focus on the problems important to the individuals donating will thrive, while ineffective, poorly-run charities will eventually cease to exist. Some charities are certainly complete wastes of time and money (often, a good way to identify these is if they are named after a professional athlete); ideally, these charities will not be around long.
The real issue seems to be the efficacy of voluntourism as a whole. So what is voluntourism?
Voluntourism really is the perfect word to describe
international service trips, because it is a combination of both
volunteering and tourism. Volunteering is a selfless act of providing
for others, while tourism is a "selfish" (though I don't believe there
should be a negative connotation to this) act of providing yourself with an
experience. In reality, these trips involve plenty of both. What
people do not understand is that they are volunteering their money more
than their time. Indeed, it seems to be tremendously inefficient for
organizations to fly individuals from wealthier countries to third-world
countries to do a job that could be done better and cheaper by a local
worker. So why do they do it?
In a way, it is a value-based bundling of services. If an organization asked you to donate $500 to have a house built in Guatemala, you probably wouldn't be scrambling for your check book. But if the same organization said that it wanted $3,000 and that it would provide you with flights to a foreign land, room and board, local guides, security, and a unique experience of helping those less fortunate, many would sign on immediately. The fact that $500 of this money is going directly to a donation does not enter your mind, as it is the cost of admission for a bundle that you desire.
Furthermore, these trips are fantastic marketing opportunities for the organizations, particularly for those at a young age. The kid mentioned in the article probably does not have money to donate right now; however, there is a high probability he will in the future as he comes from a wealthy family. What is the first organization that he is going to think of when determining his donation strategy? You guessed it. By letting him be involved at a young age, the organization may have just guaranteed itself a million dollars or more in his will.
When the author implies that going on an international service trip is a less efficient use of money than providing venture capital for a start-up, he is probably correct; however, he is also misguided. He is viewing the total money spent as all charity, while actually only a portion of it is. The rest, used to cover the costs of the trip, stimulates the economy as much as any other economic activity. The fact is that most people are not making the choice strictly between voluntourism and an activity that more directly stimulates the economy. The author implies that his kid working at Jamba Juice is providing a service more useful for the economy. Wrong! The child going to Guatemala for the summer has a job: his employer is his parents. The money they are spending to send him to Guatemala for this program is not, as the author says, tax deductible (save the actual donation portion). This is money they would not have spent if he were working at Jamba Juice and likely came from savings. They are directly contributing to the economy by spending this money.
This also ignores the fact that the majority of these trips are not filled with participants choosing between the trip and a job. Each time I went on Habitat for Humanity trips, it was during my vacation and was used as an alternative to a more typical vacation; for instance, drinking margaritas in Cancun. I don't think
Ayn Rand herself would say the drinking in Cancun is more beneficial than voluntourism to society as a whole (well, maybe she would).
A lot of the article sounds like sour grapes about a spoiled generation of children. Honestly, I'm inclined to agree that the current generation seems to have an amazing amount of luxury without having contributed much. Wouldn't this be true of most generations though? I'm sure my parents couldn't believe that I had a video game system (the original Nintendo, for those keeping score) in my home when I was 5 years old, when they were born before color television even existed.
The fact is that economic growth is the greatest way to contribute to society and voluntourism can be an amazing driver for this. Blaming voluntourism for the fact that it occasionally attracts privileged, self-righteous volunteers is ridiculous. I'd invite the author to learn a little more about voluntourism and some of its real-world benefits. If he promises to do that, I'll promise to read Eat People: And Other Unapologetic Rules for Game-Changing Entrepreneurs.
