Selling Foreign Aid

This article about a unique way to market foreign aid is from the Ideas section of the Toronto Star, Friday, November 16, 2007, page AA8:

NEW WAY TO MARKET FOREIGN AID

Conrad McCallum

Some poor countries need clean water more than laptops. That's one of the strange arguments that has been directed at the ambitious One Laptop Per Child charity, which aims to supply laptops worth about $200 to schoolchildren in the developing world.

It's a true statement, but to whom is it addressed? OLPC isn't Engineers Without Borders; it's a spinoff of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Media Lab. It's like telling a charitable toothpaste provider - operating in an oral hygiene-challenged village - that dandruff is a much bigger worry for some of the residents.

It's early yet for any evidence supporting various predictions, including the dire ones: that laptops can't support the hoped-for educational purpose; or, even if they could, they won't remain in the youngsters' hands for long.

So critics have recently set their sights on GOGO.

The Delaware-based project will use a "Give One, Get One" program to open sales of the XO laptops to people in the U.S. and Canada next month. Boasting built-in wireless technology and a child-friendly user interface, the machines are rechargeable by hand with a pulley or crank and can be read in full sunlight.

From Nov. 12 to 26 only, buyers are invited to purchase two for $400 - one for a child in a poor country and one for little Ashley or Andrew at home. The promotion is designed to create a surge in donated laptops that OLPC hopes will stimulate demand in countries hesitant to join the program.

But to some, "Give One, Get One" is a kind of foreign aid version of the retail industry's "Buy One, Get One Free." Campaigns too focused on "getting" are dangerous because they condition donors to give generously only when there's a tangible reward, they argue.

Certainly, those who participate in "Give One, Get One" will not only receive a trendy new laptop, they'll also enjoy a rarefied cachet from their act of ethical consumption - and such rewards supposedly erode efforts to promote more altruistic kinds of giving.

The truth is we commonly expect to receive something enjoyable back from our giving (see charity runs, walks, galas and auctions). Donors are motivated to give for a variety of personal reasons, such as fame, peer pressure or posterity.

The reasons don't taint donations, which are what matter in the end. (Conversely, reasons for not giving are of great interest to charities but they largely remain private, not giving on its own doesn't signal anything in particular.)

Whatever its impact, "Give One, Get One" is certainly an intriguing new way to market a specific type of foreign aid to Westerners - and along with it, a particular set of values and ideas about development.

Addressing the claim that this type of ethical consumption robs from "pure" charitable giving really comes down to how individual "Give One, Get One" laptop buyers will view the transaction.

There will be those who feel like they're donating. (And they might prefer to simply donate to OLPC, anytime.) There will be consumers enticed by a new and inexpensive laptop. (A bargain at $188, but less so in India, which has reportedly rejected OLPC's offer and turned to developing at $10 laptop for schoolchildren.)

Many others will consider "Give One, Get One" part consumption, part charity, and some of them will be introspective. Am I shopping with a conscience or shopping without a conscience? Is this the most sensible donation I've made this year, or a case of "me generation" philanthropy?

The transaction complete, such labels have zero impact on the end product: that's the ethical shopper's afterthought, a feeling that's as empty as it is consoling.

Conrad McCallum is a Toronto writer.