I think I agree with the Starfish theory. You cannot save the world, but maybe you can save 1, and if that's all you do, you've done more then most.

quote:

Originally posted by Prisa:
I think I agree with the Starfish theory. You cannot save the world, but maybe you can save 1, and if that's all you do, you've done more then most.

True, true...but that is not directly related with short term vs. long term volunteer work debate here. To tinker with the analogy, imagine the star fish screaming "what are you freaking doing??? i worked my whole life to get here so I could mate!!! you stupid...gasp...do gooder...gasp...now i'll drown...gurgle..."

OK, so most of us know that star fish don't mate on shore, but hopefully the point sticks. And I am not even touching on the uglier aspects.

And all the time the starfish picker-upper was walking around with an iPod (worth the value of one starfish's yearly income).

Good will can do bad things. And, more depressingly, good will can be corrupted to meet selfish needs. What works and what does not is more in line with the thread than "can one person make a difference", how ever true the sentiment is.

BTW: I second Elis' well enumerated points. Read them again, kids.

alright, I hate to say this, but I was googling George Carlin because he was a comedian I appreciated and you know, he passed on. umm. he gave a very interesting speech on wildlife conversation that at first offended me but then made me think. youtube.com/watch?v=ljNDbKpusT0&NR=1 how much effect do we really have on the environment? is this just another way we humans are exerting our arrogance on the world? or are we really just trying to correct the mess we already made? then again, are we and our consumption habits part of what nature is ready for? makes ya think, anyway - -Fishfool @ The Reef Tank

If the short-term volunteers pay enough for the experience, then they are compensating the locals, charity etc for the "experience of volunteering". Is that any worse than me paying for travel or tourism and just having fun?

Maybe they're not doing as much good as they think they are doing, but if they are compensating the charity or economy with cash, then what's the real harm? Probably if they weren't there for "charity" they'd be there just hanging around, carousing, drinking beer and annoying locals with their evil tourist western ways, eh? What's worse?

Well, they may be compensating the organization, or they may be compensating a travel company. I have probably posted somewhere in this thread that I think changing people's minds is more important than, like, actual volunteer output labor which is bound to be pretty small anyway... so I don't think it's automatically bad to compensate a travel company, if the result is a project or trip that changes how people look at the issues at hand (in a more realistic, less patronizing way, perhaps). But it wouldn't be accurate to assume that any fee is necessarily going to the organization.

quote:

Originally posted by Elis:
2. Unless a person has specific skills they can bring to the table, it is far better to get the work done with the locals or recipients of the project. It is always better for a project's long-term success if the people who are helped by it are also involved in helping themselves. And I also think that it is amazingly arrogant for an 18yr old American or European kid to think he or she has more skills that an adults in the country being visited. Get an education first.

This is more or less how I've always felt. I was recently travelling with a friend of mine (a journalist who had just finished a year volunteering in rural India where she was documenting living conditions of women and disabled people and those with HIV/AIDS.) Her experience in the region led her to agree that most unskilled volunteers (even if they ARE in a region for longer periods) are at best of neutral usefullness.

In almost every circumstance, a local could be hired to do the work of an unskilled volunteer at lower cost (than the amount paid by a westerner for living expenses.) This would get the work done just as well AND provide a job for someone in need.

quote:

Originally posted by oswiu:

quote:

Originally posted by Elis:
2. Unless a person has specific skills they can bring to the table, it is far better to get the work done with the locals or recipients of the project. It is always better for a project's long-term success if the people who are helped by it are also involved in helping themselves. And I also think that it is amazingly arrogant for an 18yr old American or European kid to think he or she has more skills that an adults in the country being visited. Get an education first.

This is more or less how I've always felt. I was recently travelling with a friend of mine (a journalist who had just finished a year volunteering in rural India where she was documenting living conditions of women and disabled people and those with HIV/AIDS.) Her experience in the region led her to agree that most unskilled volunteers (even if they ARE in a region for longer periods) are at best of neutral usefullness.

In almost every circumstance, a local could be hired to do the work of an unskilled volunteer at lower cost (than the amount paid by a westerner for living expenses.) This would get the work done just as well AND provide a job for someone in need.

1. I haven't done much international volunteering but I have done plenty of volunteering in the US. One-shot projects where you show up for the day, get trained on what to do and then have at it. In every case, the organization running the project was grateful for our assistance and was clear that the work they do was heavily dependent on the contributions of volunteers. It is important, in such circumstances, to have a structured project and to have someone who can explain the project clearly.

2. As for hiring locals to do the work, that sounds great but where's the money going to come from??? I doubt that many of these places are flush with cash to begin with and if you eliminate the international volunteers who are paying to be there, now the place has less money. If anything, they''ll have to lay off staff. But maybe I'm missing something in what you're saying.

Indeed, a volunteer who offers her time for free and pays for her training and living expenses is definitely far better than nothing.

But if she was interested purely in helping the project in question she could almost certainly just donate the money she'd spend on living costs while volunteering and employ one (or probably more) locals with this amount.

As for the issue of volunteering in the US vs. in developing countries, that's another matter entirely. In the US, labour (even unskilled labour) is expensive, so donating it IS making a very valuable contribution. In addition, you're showing up with the language skills you need to make an immediate difference which is often not the case in a developing nation.

I'm not trying to suggest that people SHOULDN'T volunteer their unskilled labour in developing countries. Just that they recognize that doing so is not necessarily a particularly effective way to make a contribution.

quote:

Originally posted by oswiu:

But if she was interested purely in helping the project in question she could almost certainly just donate the money she'd spend on living costs while volunteering and employ one (or probably more) locals with this amount.

True, but it's hard to imagine why anyone would want to do that. Presumably such a person would still want to travel. So they would still have to cover their own living expenses while also providing money to the volunteer organization. Which means they'd have to spend more money than if they were just volunteering. Plus, if they're not volunteering what would they do all day? I suppose they could do the typical backpacker move around from place to place travel, but not everyone's interested in that sort of travel.

quote:

I'm not trying to suggest that people SHOULDN'T volunteer their unskilled labour in developing countries. Just that they recognize that doing so is not necessarily a particularly effective way to make a contribution.

I feel compelled to point out that that is simply your opinion. And yet you're stating it as if it's a fact. That being said, I'm sure there's some truth to what you're saying. But some, maybe even a lot of that could be dealt with by better structuring of projects and by better matching of volunteers with projects. My opinion is that their is no such thing as an unskilled person...everyone has something they can contribute.

Well done to whoever bumped this thread. Also I am glad this was posted here and not the volunteer-chat. The forum has about 30 sections and it is humanly impossible to check all of them, consequently many good threads in quieter sections go unnoticed by the majority.

Anyway back on topic...

I accept the starfish theory, and I accept that aid-organisations play a crucial role in the world and I am glad they exist. However in the wider context of global poverty all this aid-work seems like placing a band-aid on a gunshot wound. The real solution to the problem is reform of the global economic system combined with political reform within certain affected countries. But for now having the band-aid is better than nothing, so I am glad the band-aid exists.

Re volunteering itself. I am confused by the arguments made by certain people against short-term volunteers. Yes I get that long-termers are more valuable etc. But people have said that a) short-termers do more harm instead of good, b) you cannot be helpful unless you speak the local language, c) training/supervising short-termers makes the organisation lose money.

If all the above is true then why on earth do these voluneer organisations take on short-termers in the first place? Surely they are not stupid? Surely the aid-organisation would only take on short-termers if the fees-paid or the physical contribution of the short-termer outweighed the time-cost of their training/supervision, thereby producing a net benefit?

I am confused.

quote:

If all the above is true then why on earth do these voluneer organisations take on short-termers in the first place? Surely they are not stupid? Surely the aid-organisation would only take on short-termers if the fees-paid or the physical contribution of the short-termer outweighed the time-cost of their training/supervision, thereby producing a net benefit?

I think that's a great question to ask.

I don't really have an answer but here is what I think: this is why bad aid programs happen too. The donors - even if they don't say it aloud - feel "beggars can't be choosers" and "any help is better than no help at all", because they may not consider other alternatives. And turning away help Or, those other alternatives (

quote:

The real solution to the problem is reform of the global economic system combined with political reform within certain affected countries.

) seems impossible.

I also think that part of the reason volunteer programs exist is that other - not local - organizations are involved and they offer the local organization something that they do need in the short term like some (even if not all of the) funding.

In the US, and I believe with some donors who may make grants internationally, incorporating volunteers also makes organization eligible for some funding /grants that those that don't incorporate volunteers aren't eligible for.

But also, maybe local organizations also realize that bringing people from the bigger countries to their countries to see what is going on first hand DOES make a difference. No, setting up 20 tables and painting a classroom may not make a difference in Rwanda, but it is valuable to go somewhere and even briefly meet people and feel a connection to their problems ... not all but maybe some people will go home and a)donate b) tell lots of people about it or c) go into work that can make a bigger impact.

Solving many of these big problems is not just a matter of money, and I think people who actually go there can sometimes come to understand what is going on better than people who just stay at home and send off a check or something, and understanding that is really important to eventually finding some solution...even travel can have that affect.

quote:

Originally posted by KathrynD:
Is that any worse than me paying for travel or tourism and just having fun?

Yes, and that is the point. Re-read the thread, dear boot.

quote:

Maybe they're not doing as much good as they think they are doing, but if they are compensating the charity or economy with cash

They could be doing flat out harm, full stop. There is a risk--it is worth discussing.

quote:

, then what's the real harm?

The potential harm is well discussed earlier in the thread. Read again.

quote:

Probably if they weren't there for "charity" they'd be there just hanging around, carousing, drinking beer and annoying locals with their evil tourist western ways, eh? What's worse?

Depriving locals of actual productive jobs, allowing westerners to think that a quick drunken holiday with token manual labor efforts qualifies as 'aid', or addressing the symtom and not the problem? You might as well start sending pink Teddy Bears to blood spattered war orphans in Darfur, so you can tell yourself you did good.

Yes, I'm being mean. But I think all you stary-eyed do-gooders need to hear it. Your warm fuzzy intentions can do harm.

From your ever-loving pragmatic liberal,

Stoo

Stoo, in light of your strong views I would be very interested to get your views relating to my question above.

Remember this thread from about two years ago? Documentary is made and episodes are up! Link in original post.

Craze_b0i wrote:Stoo, in light of your strong views I would be very interested to get your views relating to my question above.

Sorry, craze_ ...never came back to this, but KateL57 has brought it back into focus. I feel bad. I'll come back on this later...