Wednesday, July 06, 2005

Go team.

Focus on the Family is encouraging Americans to feel a sense of moral superiority with regards to worldwide philanthropy. Here's a "news brief" from their CitizenLink update yesterday:
U.S. Outgives the World The United States gives more aid to developing countries than any other nation, Scotsman.com reported. In a recent study by the Hudson Institute, the U.S. gave 15 times more than its European neighbors. In advance of the G8 summit and campaigns by Make Poverty History and Live 8, the study shows Americans are more generous than many claim. Church collections, philanthropists and company giving amounted to $22 billion. That is compared to a European Union average of $1.6 billion in private-sector giving. The numbers get more impressive in light of the fact that 12 percent of the immigrant population sends more than $40 billion in aid to their home countries. President Bush has pledged to take African aid from $1.2 billion to $8.7 billion by 2010.
Go team. But this statistic represents the grossest, most blatant attempt to mislead available to presenters of statistics. It's talking about a gross number! The United States gives more money than EU countries do -- this is easily explained by the well-established scientific fact that -- drumroll -- the United States is bigger! FOTF didn't provide a link or any specific information about the Scotsman.com article they refer to, but I managed to find it with a few targeted searches. Here it is. (Free registration, or bugmenot, required.) Sure enough, it does include this quotation:
Private American citizens donated almost 15 times more to the developing world than their European counterparts, research reveals this weekend ahead of the G8 summit. Private US donors also handed over far more aid than the federal government in Washington, revealing that America is much more generous to Africa and poor countries than is claimed by the Make Poverty History and Live 8 campaigns.
So FOTF's source does offer the same spin they do. But the source is at least slightly more honest; they include this critical passage as well:
The US is the largest overall donor with its $16.3bn in 2003. But this works out as 0.15% of its GNI - the lowest of any G8 member and less than half the 0.35% EU average. Britain stands at 0.34% and Norway is the highest, with 0.92%.
So, relative to the size of the economy, the U.S. is much, much less charitable than most EU countries. What about relative to population? Some rough and ready calculations: Twenty-five EU countries Average of $1.6 billion in philanthropy EU total: 25 * $1.6 billion = $40 billion EU Population: 456,863,000 Average EU philanthropy per person: $87. US total: $22 billion U.S. Population: 295,734,134 (I didn't know google could do that!) Average US philanthropy per person: $74. So the U.S. gives a bit less per capita, and a whole lot less per dollar in the economy, than Europe does. My point here is just that the "data" in question is presented ridiculously. None of this should underscore a more crucial point: the idea that the amount that other people and other countries give determines how much we ought to give would be laughable if it weren't killing so many people.

14 comments:

  1. I didn't realize that helping the world was a competition. Could the U.S. do more? Sure... Could some others in other countries ALSO do more? Probably. Who cares where the money comes from as long as someone out there is caring enough to give it? In the end - is the money going to the right place, and is it helping the people it is meant to help? I could care less about each country's statistics.

    But to complete your math, I would encourage you to look at the differences in living expenses in some of these EU countries. I mean - don't some of them have much more reasonable health care expenditures or higher incomes etc. which would enable them to have more capital for charitable giving? I'm not sure if you're examples were any less flawed than the original diagram laid out...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Your main point is exactly the same as my "more crucial point". As to the challenge: it's obviously a complicated question, which group has more disposible income. I don't really have a belief one way or the other.

    But by bringing in the relevant factors that we *do* know about, we get much closer to an accurate statistic. The questions you bring up could shift the number in either direction.

    I don't know what you mean by examples or diagrams.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think this competition thing started after the tsunami when people starting complaining that the U.S. government wasn't giving enough for it. The response was that American citizens were giving more than anyone else, and I don't think that was gross. I think it was per capita.

    It's possible the charity competition was earlier in the form of the blue state/red state charitable giving figures. People started comparing red state and blue state charitable giving, of which the former is much higher despite being a much poorer demographic (though anyone who has raised support for anything knows that people with little money know its value more and are more likely to give it to worthy causes). I don't remember which of these two was first, but I think it was the tsunami giving.

    Actually, Celebrity Jeopardy is before both of those. Isn't that a charitable giving competition?

    ReplyDelete
  4. 2 Points....
    1) You are also misusing the statistics to suit your own agenda (much as the article did).
    When you ignore social structure, tax rate and the like you cannot make a reasonable comparison between two countries governemnt AID.
    I think we would both expect that a more socialistic country would tend to have more government AID donations and less private, and vice versa for a more capitalistic country.

    2) Is AID effective? I had always thought so, but recently I have begun to question this. Much as if giving a homeless wino $50 doesn't really help. I have a post that collates some of the ideas on this meme http://alangrey.blogspot.com/2005/07/charity-failure-of-aid.html

    ReplyDelete
  5. An addendum...also, part of the article quoted says "Adelman found that the maximum EU figure was a mere $1.5bn in private sector donations"

    Yet you use an AVERAGE figure of $1.6 billion? I don't think that is right.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Actually, Celebrity Jeopardy is before both of those. Isn't that a charitable giving competition?

    No, it's not. Celebrity Jeopardy is a regular competition, with the proceeds going to charity. It's not a bunch of people who try to out-give one another for a sense of moral superiority.

    Really, though, I do countenance some sorts of competitive charity. Two offices might have a contest to see which could raise the most money for some good cause. That's good fun, and also an effective way to promote giving.

    "Other countries give less", as a shield against criticism, is what strikes me as a little bit offensive; especially when the numbers across the board are as small as they are.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Alan:

    You are also misusing the statistics to suit your own agenda (much as the article did).

    No I'm not.

    I'm pointing out what's wrong with the FOTF reasoning. By adding the minimal amount of context, the statistics suggest the opposite of what is claimed. I'm fully aware that there's more context to be given, and I'm not making a claim about how things would turn out with all of the appropriate context. That would require some serious data and sociological analysis.

    I think we would both expect that a more socialistic country would tend to have more government AID donations and less private, and vice versa for a more capitalistic country.

    That sounds like a somewhat plausible empirical prediction, but it's completely beside the point. You're offering a prediction that more socialist countries will give less, privately. First response: this is irrelevant to the evaluation of FOTF's implication, which was that people are more charitable in the U.S. It's still unsubstantiated, and in fact counter to the evidence they cite. Second response: most EU countries are MORE socialist than the US. So, if your prediction is right, then all other things equal, we'd expect them to give LESS per capita in private aid. But they don't; they give more.

    The extent to which aid is effective is a worthwhile question, but not the one before us. I'm taking FOTF to task for making a false claim about how much aid the average U.S. citizen gives, relative to the average European.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Alan says: part of the article quoted says "Adelman found that the maximum EU figure was a mere $1.5bn in private sector donations"

    Yet you use an AVERAGE figure of $1.6 billion? I don't think that is right.


    I got my 1.6 number from the FOTF coverage, which I quote near the top of my post: "That is compared to a European Union average of $1.6 billion in private-sector giving." If the actual numbers are slightly different, then the averages will also be slightly different. This doesn't make the FOTF claim any more justified.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Jonathan
    By adding the minimal amount of context, the statistics suggest the opposite of what is claimed. I'm fully aware that there's more context to be given, and I'm not making a claim about how things would turn out with all of the appropriate context. That would require some serious data and sociological analysis.
    Your minimal amount of context is being used to say that their conclusion is wrong. Yet in showing that they misrepresent the data (Which I am not arguing with), you are misrepresenting the data.

    I got my 1.6 number from the FOTF coverage, That explains it then. I got my number from the article you used to get more context and a more accurate picture. FOTF has certainly produced a sloppy news brief..maybe they are looking for jobs at the LA Times?

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'm intrigued that they include "Church collections" in their list of philanthropy. Does that mean money given BY churches to charitiable causes or money given TO churches. If it's the former, no problem. If it's the later I have a hard time considering that as counting.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Alan, you charge me of misrepresenting the data, but I haven't seen anything backing it up. I consider this to be a serious accusation. I think I'm faithfully interpreting the data in the most accurate way available.

    When I charged FOTF with misrepresentation, I offered a superior treatment of the numbers with a contrary result. That onus is now on you, if you're to demonstrate that I've failed in the same sort of way that they did.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I agree with Anonymous. Individual caring is more important than international statistics. Let me ask YOU: Lets take 2005; how much have you personally given to any philanthropic organization, including a church this year? Just curious. Grandma

    ReplyDelete
  13. I agree with Anonymous. Individual caring is more important than international statistics. Let me ask YOU: Lets take 2005; how much have you personally given to any philanthropic organization, including a church this year? Just curious. Grandma

    ReplyDelete
  14. Nation-wide statistics reflect individual contributions. So I think that the former is a relevant consideration with regards to the latter -- and I agree, that's (one of the things that is) really important.

    how much have you personally given to any philanthropic organization, including a church this year?

    I have mixed feelings about this question. One one hand, it strikes me as a rather personal matter. On the other, I think that the matter is important enough that it might, in some circumstances, trump such privacy considerations, such that it's best for me to answer it publically. I also despise the self-righteous, often-hypocritical attitude that comes with public declarations of how philanthropic one is. (Jesus despised that, too.)

    I'm far from the ideal moral agent, and I don't pretend otherwise. I'm not going to get up on my soapbox and demand that everyone follow my example, because I'm ready to admit it: my example is not all that great, relative to what it could be, even given the fact that I'm a poor graduate student. Rather, I'm going to say that there are causes out there that are more important than many of the things that most of us (including me) spend much of our money on. We should all do better. Remember my main point: I am offended that FotF is trying to convince Americans that they're doing enough; that it's not a good idea to increase aid to Africa. It's even worse, of course, when the arguments they use to support this claim are so obviously fallacious.

    That said, I'll give an approximate answer to the question. I think that I've given about $200 to charity organizations in the past six months. Oxfam is my favorite charity. If we expand 'philanthropy' to include donations to political causes, which I support for the same reason -- to make the world better for the people who live in it -- the number probably doubles. I also give my time to help raise money for charitable purposes.

    Judge me if you want, but don't do it here. This post isn't about me.

    ReplyDelete