A lot of people are happy to give if everyone else does as well. If they give but most people don’t, they will feel taken advantage of: They will have paid their “fair share” but other people won’t.
It would be better if fewer people had this psychological barrier, but there you go.
If your aim is to maximise the amount donated, your expected increase is maximised by agitating for a switch in government expenditure. (Nothing to stop you giving as an individual as well, of course. But answering "yes" to "should the government spend more on %good_thing" either has no effect or encourages them to switch existing spending towards good things or encourages them to fund good things through increased expenditure, which costs you epsilon and results in significant extra expenditure. Answering "no" and voluntarily paying epsilon yourself has less net benefit than answering "yes" and donating epsilon anyway if taxes don't go up. Plus it's easier to remember to pay the epsilon if it's done through PAYE...)
If you respond to a Red Cross appeal on one of these things, you get bombarded with letters for ever after suggesting you give to other appeals.
However, by giving charitably, you get to decide what your money goes towards, which you evidently don't with governments and especially local councils.
People believe that more should be given, that is to say that other people should be made to "give" through the tax system. Passive verbs should be watched carefully when they appear in politics.
On the more general subject of aid, I saw a poster recently pointing out that it was the 20th anniversary of Band Aid and that people were still starving in Ethiopia. The intent was presumably to stir up charity, but it made me feel very discouraged. There is a serious problem with certain kinds of aid - it turns out that you can't stop people being poor by giving them money.
And then there's Amartya Sen's excellent work in showing that famine is nearly always a political problem - a sign that the section of the country that is starving has no power - and very rarely something that is beyond the ability of the country to solve.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2004-12-28 07:19 pm (UTC)It would be better if fewer people had this psychological barrier, but there you go.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-12-28 07:41 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-12-28 08:29 pm (UTC)However, by giving charitably, you get to decide what your money goes towards, which you evidently don't with governments and especially local councils.
get bombarded with letters for ever after
Date: 2004-12-28 08:39 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-12-28 11:13 pm (UTC)On the more general subject of aid, I saw a poster recently pointing out that it was the 20th anniversary of Band Aid and that people were still starving in Ethiopia. The intent was presumably to stir up charity, but it made me feel very discouraged. There is a serious problem with certain kinds of aid - it turns out that you can't stop people being poor by giving them money.
And then there's Amartya Sen's excellent work in showing that famine is nearly always a political problem - a sign that the section of the country that is starving has no power - and very rarely something that is beyond the ability of the country to solve.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-12-28 11:58 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-12-29 12:09 am (UTC)