Free-Aid and It's Impacts on the Psyche of the Masses

Here are some observations:

The charter of charitable institutions is to immediately address poverty-related issues. The problem with this is that they have to be selective, otherwise, their funds will run out since the support they are receiving from the local private sector is insufficient. Hence most of the funds used for their work are generated from fixed budget shares of groups like WVI, CARE, USAID, ADB, and local government agencies. There is no end in sight when it comes to addressing poverty.

Most of these organizations have shifted from "providing a fish, to teaching people how to fish"--and they find this a daunting challenge. They have recognized the fact that the battle they have to fight in order to alleviate the conditions that have given rise to their cause is a battle of the mind. From their observations, environmental conditions are secondary to the problem of mindsets. They have noticed that a large part of the communities they are helping consists of able-bodied individuals who are simply shackled by how they think of themselves and how they perceive the environment around them. They could not help but notice (just my personal assessment and not putting words in their mouth) that the people they help seem to carry a chip on their shoulder, that others are obligated to help provide for their needs, that the rich is obligated to help the poor, etc. While these programs help provide the basic essentials of life, such as a roof to live in, basic nutrition, medical assistance, family planning they have also introduced programs geared to help these communities (we are not talking about exceptions but entire communities) start micro businesses. These micro-enterprise programs revealed the systemic problem within these impoverished communities--mindset. Because of the relative ease by which they could avail of their needs (just fall in line, fill up an application, tell a sad story) they could avail of basic necessities without having to work for it. Easy cash.

It seems that impoverished communities have been habituated to receive dole outs, have developed a dependence on a system of charity, rather than constructively participate in the economy. They can offer no specific solutions as they have tried everything, but have yielded very little by way of ideal outputs. This presents a set of problems on the part of these organizations: they too are bound to specific outputs by their donors, they need to achieve or accomplish objectives and the only way they can move on to the next is if they could prove that they have met (even the minimum) expectations--otherwise, coffers begin to run dry as budgets begins to be redirected elsewhere.

A conflict between Malthus and Maslow...

Most donor agencies have poured in millions of dollars in funds to these local programs (billions if we are to count those lost to corruption) which is leading donor agencies to question the validity of the expectations they set for their own funding priorities. If they would take a fraction of these funds to help entrepreneur-minded individuals within the same impoverished community, they would more likely see some form of returns within a 3 year period (as in the case in Kenya, South Africa, etc.) and an improved lifestyle of that family.

Interesting enough, they have observed that these impoverished communities, squatters, marginalized people groups never seem to want to get out or change the way they live. Although living as squatters, for example, most could afford a cell phone, stereo component, television, electronic gadgets, etc. They also seen the same group afford to party every night, sleep all day, and act only when they need to buy something or pay for something. They do not want to pay for rent, taxes, and want to avail of everything for "free". This section of the community also represents the most productive areas of drug syndicates in the country. Of course, these observations are restricted to able-bodied individuals who could earn their own living, and not to those that have legitimate needs due to physical handicaps.

Politicians implicitly support this system to guarantee a larger voting share come elections. They rally behind the cause of providing the "material needs" and leave out the importance of establishing a sense of dignity and personal pride. They benefit by reinforcing the obvious--a system of poverty. While saying there will be hope, they curtail the very resources that could help people realize progress (corruption, bureaucracy, etc.).

An epicurean dilemma of sorts - eat and be merry for tomorrow you die...

These programs are doing everything they can. But I agree with them that there is no end in sight unless we simultaneously address other factors that contribute to the problem.

The poor will always be with us and will always be a part of every generation and economy. Even G8 countries have a large segment of their population living below the poverty line. Poverty is relative. If we compare the condition of food-stamp recipients in the US to that of our local counterpart, those in the US are not "poor" at all. But the conditions that lead to poverty are all too common--mindsets. We will need to reckon with the reality and perennial presence of poverty. Helping the poor needs to be a result of personal conviction about one's social responsibility and not another's responsibility. Unfortunately no mathematical algorithm can solve this problem. You can pour in billions, and still not make a dent in the problem. This leads to the question of psychological amplification.
Why is it that the Philippine's poverty issues are more pronounces than other countries? Is it because we have been conditioned to think that alleviating poverty equates to social progress? Our have we simply been conditioned to "pity"--pity others, and pity ourselves? Or have we resigned the issue as one completely determined by one's environment? Have you ever driven between city lines that separate Washington, D.C. from Baltimore, MD? If sufficient donations or philanthropic resources is the solution, then why does this exist in the most powerful and wealthiest nation on earth. We need to keep our condition in perspective.

Why is it that the local political agenda is more focused on poverty alleviation rather than job creation? Japan, UK, USA, Singapore, Australia, China, Canada, and other Asia Pacific countries all have their share of poor, but their economic programs focus more on the issue of jobs creation. All we hear locally is about poverty alleviation. Why are we in search of an egalitarian economy? As long as the world economy is driven by capitalism, an egalitarian economy is not achievable or tenable.

Compared to my lifestyle in the US, I am very poor in the way I live in the Philippines. So this state of poverty is relative. All of us live a hand-to-mouth existence at different levels. It is all a matter of mindsets--mindsets that reinforce a "system" of poverty which is very different from addressing the "condition" of poverty. Conditions can be changed immediately, systems require generations in order to effect the slightest degree of change. A condition of poverty is a direct result of a system of poverty. One's continued condition of poverty is a direct consequence of individual and collective, albeit reinforcing mindsets that create the system of poverty.

Why don't we create more jobs?

Fundamentally, Filipinos have a weak sense of belief in their fellow Filipinos. Most don't want to invest because they are not confident that the system of thinking that generally governs individuals they hire will not lead to some return on investment. The problem is, unless we are willing to take the chance, to take the risk of believing in our fellow Filipino, we will simply contribute to the psychological amplification of the system of poverty.
Let's take the situation of India as an example. India is more corrupt than the Philippines. I once hired an Indian national to train my local technical staff. He had to naturally secure a local driver's license. Every one was trying to apologize for the inefficient and corrupt way agencies are run locally. To his amazement, he received his license in less than a day! He commented that in India, he had to bribe and still had to wait 3 months for his license when he applied for one in 2003. He wondered why my local staff was putting down their own system. We say we believe in our people, but in the deepest recesses of our minds, we have our "fingers crossed", hoping that we won't be ashamed of what transpires.

We have been conditioned to think in terms that people will take advantage of us. When you have 10 people in a room conditioned to think in these terms, how do you suppose each will act? They will each act in a manner that they think would protect their own interest in a convoluted way. Each will easily justify this mentality: "dalawang klaseng tao sa mundo, ang nanloloko at ang niloloko...sila muna bago ako" Even the virtue of kindness is received with apprehension--"ano kaya ang kailangan nito sa akin?" Convoluted, ain't it? We expect the worse rather than the best in our fellow. In this regard I defer to what Bobby refers to as being neighborly, we need to employ the same attitudes he was referring to within our local communities. But before we can do so, we must first alter the way we think--we need to take kindness at face value--expressed kindness. And if we were ever given the chance to return the favor, we need to do so with an open heart and an open mind!

Who are the Friars now? Is the current generation the embodiment of everything putrid about Padre Damaso? Are we that embodiment? Have we really gotten over calling our fellow by stereotypes existent in Rizal's time? Our have we simply come up with more sophisticated classifications?

Another is a "debt of gratitude" system. Ito ang utang na hindi nababayaran. Almost everyone expects that if they do something kind towards another, the recipient of their kindness is forever bound to them in a debt of gratitude. This is typically manifested in statements like: "Kung di dahil sa'kin, ala ka..." Even if the only thing one did was to refer them to a job! Pathetic! Most of our daily transactions are built around this system (feudalistic in nature).

We are riddled with prejudice. Our kind of prejudice is deadlier than racial prejudice, and worse than a caste system. The prejudicial system that exists in the country is a hybrid that attacks the character of an individual. That's why most Pinoy's easily get piqued. We have been conditioned to think that unless we get our way, we will not be satisfied (hence the difficulty of arriving at a comprehensive democratic agenda) which results in the way we ultimately behave. Values are considered (implicitly) as an agenda waiting to materialize. Troubling...

Second, the creation of more jobs will ultimately result in strengthening a libertarian society where people are free to make their choices and are also responsible for those choices.
Policy makers, corporate giants don't want this to happen. Why do I say this? I refuse to believe that our condition is not designed to be the way it is today. As long as someone, somewhere benefits from this system, they will continue to feed the system to benefit their own interests at the expense of others (feudalism at work - only this time it is not about real estate but a battle for the ownership of the minds of people). Most corporations have the facade of a professional environment, but beneath this lies its true nature - the padrino system / MBA (May Backer Ako). They are bound to the mindset that unless they know the person, they cannot provide them with opportunity. And since degrees of relationships are limited and constrained, not a lot of opportunity is cascaded to qualified individuals. The chasm grow ever wider between the rich and the poor by the elimination of the middle class.

Politicians are comfortable with the system and openly flaunt their ability to use the system to their advantage. Mayors refuse to employ national programs that will cause them to lose a huge voter base. Hence, squatters are "protected" rather than removed. If these mayors are so concerned about this people (and concerned in the true unadulterated sense), why don't they house or help create programs (section 8-types) that will help these families get back on their feet, or provide a system of housing that does not negatively affect the environment within the city limits? Apathy is fueled by the same system of thinking. Politicians know that if they will fill the bellies of people, a lot less are likely to contend with them. Those that do will always be in the minority. This is why the spate of killings seem to end up as unsolved cases. It isn't because nobody saw anything (have you ever seen the density of people in our communities?), but because those who witnessed the crime remains under the impression that this might affect his "personal" meal ticket.

If we create a more sustained middle class within our economy, our political system will improve. The more voters in this sector, the larger the chances proper leadership will be voted into office. Economic progress always rests with the middle class.

First, Filipino associations should create more community visibility within the agenda of diversity within their respective cities of residence and work. It would help if they could meet up with company executives to present the Philippines as a good source of services and products. This would extend trade mission work sponsored by national and local government agencies. The Philippines can use more exposure in Europe.

Second, look at allocating a small percentage of your personal investment portfolio toward local entrepreneurial initiatives. There are a lot of entrepreneurs that are looking for access to capital - from as little as 1000 USD to as much as 2M USD. Invest in agriculture, IT, and tourism. These investments could go to management and governance education for SME's and to operating capital funding. We may not have a strong system to minimize risk at this time, but unless we have a constant stream of sources, we will not acculturate locals to think in progressive and accountable means that will create an environment of managed risk. This system must not take advantage of its recipients by usury (too much interest)--it really doesn't pay in the long term.

Third, we need to define policy that would provide facilities for bankruptcy protection, and tax incentives for corporations whose financial standing is affected by those that file for bankruptcy. We need to influence our legislators to institute policies that would allow individuals to financially recover, and protect corporations at the same time (a bad debts deduction against tax liabilities). Unless this system is in place, we will never have a stable credit system to help fuel the economy. Our current system is one that assumes failure as an exception. In most countries, transparently declaring your company is in financial trouble will open up vehicles to help them recover. If you did that here, no one will dare extend help - extreme capitalism? Nay, it's fuedalism at work.

Fourth, we need to invest in programs that are geared to values formation at all levels of society. Rich and poor - both sides are in dire need to have their values calibrated and checked.

These organizations are doing a good job. But we need more programs that would affect the grassroots level. Our challenge is creating a pheromone trail that other ants could follow and rally behind...