This months blog is brought to you courtesy of a tweet
posted by @NYUReynolds and is linked to a very interesting article http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/category/fixes/
This article’s title is “When Food
Isn’t the Answer to Hunger”, which sparked my interest immediately. I thought
to myself, “How could food not be the answer” so I impatiently read the
article. I was surprise to realize that the article had several interesting and
valid point. It is specific to the aid that the Unites States provides to
countries in need to food and other items in the wake of a natural disaster or
tragedy.
The first example the article
covered was the tsunami that hit in the Indian Ocean in December 2004. Te wave
devastated the coastline and killed a quarter of a million people. But the
destruction only went so far. Just a few miles inland the country was fine and
ready to support its people. Yes they needed aid but what kind of aid did they
really need. We often think of food and water as the first things we should
provide in the wake of a disaster such as this one but in reality what they
needed was money. When the U.S. shipped in rice and gave it to the residents
for free they disrupted the local market and began to cripple the countries
economy. Because they residents
were getting the rice for free they did not have any need to buy it from the
local market causing local farmers to suffer.
In light of this discovery, several
aid organizations working locally tried a different approach. They purchased
food locally and distributed it to the people who normally have received
donations flown in from another country. They also paid the residents to clear
the debris and provided grants to families housing other residents that were
displaced by the destruction. In this instance the new approached worked well
and boasted the community as a whole creating more jobs. The cash to buy food
local ended up cheaper in the long run compared to the cost of shipping the
food in and it was available faster to the ones in need.
There are several countries where
food is not available for purchase and food aid is required but there are far
more locations where food is available but people cannot afford to buy it. If
we were to give money instead of food we could potentially boast the local
markets creating additional job faster and more efficiently than shipping in
aid. There are even reports that
show in Africa food bought locally was over 30 percent cheaper and arrived 3
months sooner than food sent by the United States.
The article goes on to explain that
cash can get to people where food cannot. There are still several places where
it is not safe for aid workers to travel but we could provide cash vouchers and
they can, again, buy locally. Maybe we should rethink the aid we are providing
to other countries and concentrate on what works best. With shipping costs
rising we are wasting money.
If you have a chance please read
the article. There are several other examples and it makes a ton of sense.We could use the food here at home and send other countries money. Maybe that would help take care of some of out problems locally!