Greetings fellow students, philanthropists and the like,
Today I am writing about yet another concept that keeps ringing in my mind. When we do our charity pitches in class, the number one question that always gets asked is “What is our money going to do?” or “What impact is our money going to make?”. I feel that we have been more prone to voting towards a smaller charity that is more localized or has less of a budget as opposed to a larger organization. Of course, there’s nothing wrong with donating to smaller organizations. In fact, back at the beginning of the semester (feels so long ago, right?), we discussed how it’s actually better to donate to local charities in times of crisis such as the aftermath of a hurricane. However, as I recall, the reasoning for that was not because a smaller amount of money makes a relatively larger impact, but because local organizations know their community’s needs the best.
I feel like when presented with a larger organization, we are prone to shying away because we don’t think our money will have much of an impact. This, my friends, is what I will refer to as “The Tragedy of the Commons”. It is often talked about in the context of an environmental perspective, but there are parallels to be drawn here. The “tragedy” refers to a situation in which there is a shared resource. All individuals have access to the resource and use it to their benefit. For example, consider the atmosphere. We can all breathe its air and emit pollutants as we please. Yes, industry is regulated to an extent but the amount that we drive our cars, for example, is not. Alone, I could drive my car as much as I want and the CO2 it emits would never make a difference to the atmosphere. So, because of that why would I work to drive a fuel-efficient or clean energy vehicle? Why would I consider walking, riding my bike or carpooling? My emissions alone make no difference. However, when everyone thinks this way it adds up to 27% of greenhouse gas emissions, a significant contribution to climate change (https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions). To really get a grasp for the concept I highly encourage you to watch these videos. They are both short, simple and have cool animations so please take a moment to view them:
Let it sit with you and consider the larger picture. As I said before, the correlation between this concept and our philanthropy class is not direct. In fact, I think our situation is a little bit of the inverse. Rather than choosing to do an action because we fail to see a significantly negative impact from us alone, we refrain because we fail to see a significantly positive impact that it will bring. Also, rather than taking from a resource we are contributing to. So, to bring this show to a close, I ask you to think if there are any other areas of philanthropy in which we can make connections with this idea? Or maybe life in general? Would anyone say philanthropic dollars are a shared resource? What are the things that we should be considering when weighing in on which charity to donate to?
Hello!
ReplyDeleteI found your blog post very intriguing but also slightly confusing. Being an environmental economics major I have a lot of experience with the Tragedy of the Commons. We often discuss how individuals in the hopes of making the best decision for themselves, which should be then result in the best for all, results in the worst scenario; as you explain very well. I am slightly confused at how you are relating this T.O.C. to our class, and please correct me if I am wrong. My interpretation is that we do not choose a charity because we fail to see the positive impacts of a small donation in a large organization and because of that choose a smaller charity. If this is your point, I do agree to some extent. I know it seems that our donation may be a drop in the bucket but if everyone felt that way then no one would end up donating to these large charities. However, this may be independent to our class as large charities such as the Bill and Melinda Gate funds continue to get small donations even though many billionaires also pledge huge sums of money.
I too find myself sometimes disappointed with the charities that we have been picking. And while it is nice that they are so heart felt, I feel there is a lack of head with these decisions. We often seem to pick a charity based on emotion rather than impact. I think another T.O.C in this class is that people seem to want to donate from the heart. And while this is spectacular, if all of us only donate from the heart then there will be a lack of charities that may make a larger impact. While we each individual wants to donate to their favorite cause if we all do that then some problems such as the opioid epidemic or mental health crisis may be overlooked due to stigmas we have talked about. What do you think about that?? I found your post very thought provoking. Thank you!
Sincerely,
Jacob Croes
Hi Andrea,
ReplyDeleteI find it very interesting how you connected the Tragedy of the Commons to our class. I agree that there is a connection, but not an inverse one as you say. I think the concept overall is that people act in a certain way because they think that their action will not have a significant effect on the matter. A herdsman puts more animals on a field because his action will not have a significant impact, and we donate somewhere else because our money may not have a large impact on a large organization. Ultimately, however, when everybody thinks this way, the consequences are extensive. If every donor thought this way, then large organizations that know how to do good productively might not exist.
I think that philanthropic dollars are a shared resource, and the nonprofits in are the herdsmen in the Tragedy of the Commons video analogy. I think the consequences of charities fundraising is donor fatigue, but I also cannot blame them for asking for donations. With tragedies happening seemingly everyday, a charity may want to get donations before the next hurricane, tsunami, earthquake, or war outbreak. Wisegeek suggests that charities limit fundraising campaigns in order to prevent this, and that donors can plan out where and how they want to donate. Nonprofit Hub suggests that it is not that people get tired of donating, but they get tired of being asked the same way over and over again. Their article suggests ways to prevent this kind of fatigue. Hopefully, if donors and charities can take the advice of the two articles, the shared resource that is money can be used by all in a sustainable way.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-donor-fatigue.htm
http://nonprofithub.org/fundraising/going-back-well-donor-fatigue-real/
Andrea,
ReplyDeleteI found this post very interesting because not only does this idea apply to this class, but it also applies to many economic, political, and social situations (and even on of my other classes)!
For example, one of the biggest examples of this situation is seen in our government, in Congress. A lot of Congress men are lobbied and pushed to make decisions that are not for the greater good, but because it gives them money in their pockets. There is an interesting article that is worth the read if you are interested in looking more into this. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/congresss-tragedy-of-the-commons/2011/06/02/AGZ6JZHH_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1d3d9b531465)
In class, there is a large emphasis on smaller organizations when we do charity pitches, but I also think we focus on organizations that will do the most good. This goes along with what you were saying about this being a backwards Tragedy of the Commons. Instead of picking the larger organization, we pick the one that we think will do the greater good for others, rather than ourselves.
However, this might be problematic, as organizations are prone to overusing this money because they get used to having consistent donors. Also, it is also a problem if we donate money to organizations that will waste our money, if we can divert that money to better, more efficient organizations. Here is an opinion piece that further discusses this (http://blogs.plymouth.ac.uk/criticalfundraising/2015/09/04/opinion-the-fundraising-commons-not-quite-the-tragedy-we-might-think/).
Interesting read, and I enjoyed the new way of looking at the Tragedy of the Commons!