I've been meaning to draw your attention to a terrific series of ads the Acton Institute's been running to promote better thinking about how to help the poor (e.g., they don't want your worn-out hand-me-downs, but access to our markets). See three of them here (click to enlarge --they're worth it). Then ninme found this wonderful story about a fashion designer who's found a way to help Sri Lankan tsunami victims (great pix there, too) that illustrates the point. Touring the devastated areas to make a documentary, the designer found the situation dire:
"As far as we could see, absolutely none of the relief money had got through to them," says James. "That said, there was still this enormous sense of pride and self-reliance; they were insistent that they weren't looking for continual hand-outs; the men just wanted boats, so that they could go out fishing again, and the women only wanted help finding new markets for their work."
So she and some others are using the lace in their costume designs --and teaching the women what appeals to tourists:
"For years, these women have been making the same sort of old-fashioned lace doilies and tablecloths that Western tourists no longer want," says Galer. "Instead, we've been encouraging them to start making things for which there is a real demand, like lace belts and these wristbands.
"The aim is to generate income that will enable them not just to survive but to put a little back into the business as well, enough to buy themselves stools to sit on, electric lights to work under, or glasses to help them with close-up work.
This reminded me --by contrast-- with a story in the business pages of WaPo (which I never, never read but picked up for some reason) about how charities are funding drug research for unglamorous tropical diseases that disproportionately affect poor people. . . .as if that were a bad thing. The logic I gather being it's more moral for "rich governments" to do it. This even though the story admits the biggest problem the poor in underdeveloped nations face is inadequate access to medicines and other care. Now I ask you, who is more likely to find an efficient way to get the medicines to the poor: Bill Gates or "rich governments" (keep in mind all the billions of tsunami aid that the fashion folks didn't find in Sria Lanka --and this is not the time for Windows jokes)? Now think-tank people want to take something that is working very well and add a UN or other international agency bureaucracy to it.
