The way we do things is wrong, you know.
Aug. 1st, 2002 12:35 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
davywavyThis has really been inspired by a post by ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
ksirafai about the value of charitable efforts, and my own feelings not only on charity, but also on other great institutions of society.
My contention; if charities succeeded in their aims, they would be out of a job – and so it is not in their interests to succeed.
Let’s look at some examples. For starters, the RSPCA. The RSPCA was originally formed to protest against, and improve as a result, the appalling conditions of working horses on London during the last century. In this, they have succeeded. The working and living conditions for animals in this country are hundreds, nay thousands of times better than they were when the RSPCA was founded. As a result, the charity long ago changed its remit – or all the people involved would have been out of a job. The society has now embraced the movement for getting animals the same rights as humans: an implausible bit of nonsense if I ever heard one, but it ensures that the executives of the charity will keep their cosy offices and warm glow of doing good work in perpetuity.
In the same way, there’s no incentive for the government to succeed in cutting crime to zero – think of all the unemployed police, social workers, prison warders and so on that such a turn up would create – a crime-free society would cause massive unemployment, and no government wants that! In fact, a rising crime rate creates jobs and employment for new police, social workers, outreach centre workers, etc, and that’s a good thing on the (electorally sensitive) unemployment figures.
Now I know I’m being extreme to the point of ridiculousness here, but you see my point – there’s no real incentive for charities to solve the problem of starvation in Africa, or for the NHS to reduce illness, or anything - as succeeding in their jobs puts them out of work!
In terms of charitable or public projects, most of the really successful ones have been individually funded with definite aim in mind; the London sewer system was funded by public subscription, as the residents of London wanted to stop dying of typhoid. Victorian mill owners philanthropically built model towns for their workers, as they wanted a healthy, fit, well- educated (and thus more productive) workforce.
Giving people a permanent job with a remit to solve a specific problem disincentivises them to solve that problem, as success puts them out of work. Even if they succeed in their initial goal (see RSPCA), you can rest assured they’ll find other ‘pressing issues’ to act upon (real or not), rather than quit the happy sinecure they’ve been given.
It strikes me that we're more likely to breed success if we create specific projects for specific problems – and reward people according to the speed and quality of their success in solving the specific problem that they have been asked to tackle before moving them onto the next one. That is, after all, how private sector industry works, and the private sector, for all of it’s failings, is notably more efficient and attracts the lions share of people with skills and talents that charitable and public endeavour really need.
ksirafai about the value of charitable efforts, and my own feelings not only on charity, but also on other great institutions of society.My contention; if charities succeeded in their aims, they would be out of a job – and so it is not in their interests to succeed.
Let’s look at some examples. For starters, the RSPCA. The RSPCA was originally formed to protest against, and improve as a result, the appalling conditions of working horses on London during the last century. In this, they have succeeded. The working and living conditions for animals in this country are hundreds, nay thousands of times better than they were when the RSPCA was founded. As a result, the charity long ago changed its remit – or all the people involved would have been out of a job. The society has now embraced the movement for getting animals the same rights as humans: an implausible bit of nonsense if I ever heard one, but it ensures that the executives of the charity will keep their cosy offices and warm glow of doing good work in perpetuity.
In the same way, there’s no incentive for the government to succeed in cutting crime to zero – think of all the unemployed police, social workers, prison warders and so on that such a turn up would create – a crime-free society would cause massive unemployment, and no government wants that! In fact, a rising crime rate creates jobs and employment for new police, social workers, outreach centre workers, etc, and that’s a good thing on the (electorally sensitive) unemployment figures.
Now I know I’m being extreme to the point of ridiculousness here, but you see my point – there’s no real incentive for charities to solve the problem of starvation in Africa, or for the NHS to reduce illness, or anything - as succeeding in their jobs puts them out of work!
In terms of charitable or public projects, most of the really successful ones have been individually funded with definite aim in mind; the London sewer system was funded by public subscription, as the residents of London wanted to stop dying of typhoid. Victorian mill owners philanthropically built model towns for their workers, as they wanted a healthy, fit, well- educated (and thus more productive) workforce.
Giving people a permanent job with a remit to solve a specific problem disincentivises them to solve that problem, as success puts them out of work. Even if they succeed in their initial goal (see RSPCA), you can rest assured they’ll find other ‘pressing issues’ to act upon (real or not), rather than quit the happy sinecure they’ve been given.
It strikes me that we're more likely to breed success if we create specific projects for specific problems – and reward people according to the speed and quality of their success in solving the specific problem that they have been asked to tackle before moving them onto the next one. That is, after all, how private sector industry works, and the private sector, for all of it’s failings, is notably more efficient and attracts the lions share of people with skills and talents that charitable and public endeavour really need.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2002-08-01 04:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-08-01 05:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-08-01 05:53 am (UTC)Perhaps a better example would be the famine relief efforts; precisely how successful have they been at preventing future famines? We'd do better if we rewarded the people working in that area for every year there *wasn't* a famine in their area.
no subject
Date: 2002-08-01 06:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-08-02 03:33 pm (UTC)I'm not sure whether you are being over cynical or overly optimistic, or whether this is just a windup. It's a little simplistic to think that the reason there are still famines in Africa is because charity workers don't want to put themselves out of a job.
Some people genuinely want to help other people. Shocking concept, but since I've started learning a bit about buddhism, I've realised that this is in fact, true.
Ok, maybe Live Aid/Band Aid type efforts are very short term and don't work too well in the long term, but the intention was just to help people...
I don't think the world is actually run by a conspiracy of Bavarians and Mr Burns... Occam's razor says incompetence, selfishness and stupidity are more likely to blame.