I’d Give You the Shirt Off of my Back

I remember, as a child, when we didn’t want to finish eating our vegetables or other food, my parents would say, “Just think of all the starving children in Africa and how they wish they could have the food you don’t want”, or something similar. It’s a common line. In response, we would often retort, “Go ahead and send it to them then!” The obvious ludicrousness of the situation was evident to us even as kids – why would someone ship an envelope of asparagus to Africa?

Unfortunately, in similar cases, we haven’t seen the ludicrousness of shipping other things to Africa. Last year, a fellow named Jason Sadler came up with (what he thought was) a great idea to send a Million Shirts to Africa. I closely followed as he was soundly brought back to earth, sitting in on a conference call with him as aid practitioners and professors outlined why giving shirts to Africa is bad aid. Jason eventually (and it did take him a while) realized that not every good intention or idea actually benefits the recipients and, some, actually harm them.

Fast-forward to last week when World Vision, the mega-big multinational aid agency announced that they were going to do the same and ship 100,000 shirts (leftovers from the NFL Super Bowl) to developing nations. While Jason was just an average guy who had little knowledge of development, World Vision can hardly claim the same excuse – they operate with a 2.5 billion dollar+ budget and are one of the largest aid organizations in the world (you may have heard of them…) Much, like Jason’s 1 million shirts idea, this is also a bad idea.

Giving used and unwanted clothing (and other items) to charities for developing nations is not a new phenomenon, chances are that a lot of us have given a bag of clothing at some point. So what makes it a bad idea? An article in The Economic Journal by Garth Frazer (2008) outlines the biggest issue – cast-off clothing in Africa harms local and domestic manufacturing. How can you compete with a massive influx of clothing that arrives for free or close to it? His report interrogates how excess clothing which can not be sold (ie. from Salvation Army, etc..) is then sold by the container-load, destined for African (or other developing area’s markets) and stifles manufacturing on a number of levels.

Why is this a problem? First, it creates a dependency on aid. Second, seeing economic production as a possible alternative to aid, it stifles local economic development in favor of cheaply imported goods.

Beyond this, shipping 100,000 shirts to developing countries is a bad use of resources. Not only are the shirts harming local economies but how much does it cost to ship the shirts there? A report, again found in The Economic Journal, by Daniel Slesnick (1996) show that on their own in-kind transfers (items such as t-shirts, food, etc… instead of money) are a reasonably efficient method of aid but, when you factor in the administration and delivery prices, they are simple bad aid. In terms of World Vision, a fine website called Good Intentions Are Not Enough breaks down the benefits and costs to this program.Beyond this, as others have written, using gifts such as shirts are a massive hassle and difficult to incorporate into larger programs – who really wants to deal with the logistics of getting 100,000 shirts to 100,000 people?

Beyond this (again), there is an issue here in terms of consumption. Every year the NFL creates shirts they know they cannot sell and know they can donate for a generous tax write off. World Vision facilitates this, in the end helping their own bottom line and getting some publicity. Why is this a problem because, as World Vision responded, they like getting publicity for their programs? First, World Vision is entrenching ideas about giving that are harmful to developing countries. Did you know that many of your donations to Goodwill are in fact sold and flood markets in Africa, Asia, etc… As Frazer points out, most people don’t. We’re not informed about charitable aid practices and organizations like World Vision are more than happy to keep us in the dark, parading harmful practices in the guise of good.

Not only this but World Vision is a Christian organization whose goal is”to follow our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in working with the poor and oppressed to promote human transformation, seek justice and bear witness to the good news of the Kingdom of God.” Is supporting wasteful production, obscuring the value of these goods, and marketing harmful practices truly working to promote transformation? Would Christ be open to such tokenism at the expense of responsible, sustainable aid? When Christ talks about, if you have two shirts give one to the poor, does he mean literally?

Finally, this type of marketing and image production entrenches ideas of naked Africans who are oh so grateful for your shirts. For most Africans, a t-shirt is easy to come by and if they do in fact need one, there are many local options (or already imported options) to choose from. It also promotes Western people as saviors (White Knights) and allows and encourages wasteful consumption among the West (When do you give old shirts away? When you buy new ones of course!) Not only that, it allows a sense of moral superiority and guilt assuaging giving without thinking about what you’re doing. It is simply, by all markers, a bad choice.

In summary: Africa doesn’t need shirts, they harm the local economy, they cost a lot to ship and distribute, the money is better used elsewhere, it promotes useless production by the NFL which uses the shirts as generous tax write offs, markets bad aid as empowering, entrenches negative stereotypes of Africa and is, in general, not being a ‘good steward’.

There are many angles to this debate and you can read all about it with this collection of posts from the interwebs. Unlike with Jason, the responses have been a lot slower coming in, perhaps due to the fact that many people work, desire to work, or know someone who works with World Vision. For me, I’ve applied to work with WV in the past and perhaps this blog post will make the possibilities nil for the future (I’d like to think they’re a little more open to debate but I’m not an optimist) but in challenging what good aid is and interrogating what Christ meant when he said give to the poor, I thought I would add my meager voice to the fray and take a stab at explaining to you, fine readers, why I am keeping the shirt on my back.

Advertisement