According to the article “Why No One Trusts Government Charities in China Anymore” in The Atlantic, the Chinese public’s resistance regarding this policy of forced donation stemmed primarily from their distrust of government-supported charities. Over the past few years there have been several highly publicized scandals involving the misuse of charitable funds for extravagant luxuries from Chinese nonprofits, such as the Shanghai branch of the Red Cross. Consequently, people viewed this forced charity proposition as a “legalized robbery,” because they believed that their money would be contributing to corrupt organizations that would not use the funds for their intended purpose. Additionally, as an article in the New York Times asserted, the philanthropic sector is not well developed in China, so people are even less inclined to be forced into giving to something that may not otherwise have any impact in their lives.
This stark Chinese opposition to forced giving led me to consider the response that such a proposition would garner in America. Personally, I believe that although Americans are more familiar with nonprofits and have significantly more trust in the good this sector can accomplish, the response to such a proposition would still be negative. The notion of forced charity seems to destroy the essence of what philanthropy should be: doing good freely, out of love and concern for fellow man. Therefore, as people in American often donate to causes that they are passionate about, if this ardor were to be removed from giving, it would lose its significance and simply become another tax. Ergo, while Americans may be more likely to support charities in general, they would likely resent their contributions being dictated by the government, and perceive such a policy as an attack on their freedom of choice.
Although the idea of forcing people to donate a certain amount seems to contradict the fundamentals of philanthropy, I believe that a less extreme policy, such as that proposed by Singer, might be very successful. If employers implemented an opt-out policy in which workers are able to select the a cause that they are passionate about, there would likely not be much resistance. Therefore, I believe the key in easing in the notion of a sort of “Charity Law” would be to keep choice involved, thus preventing it from simply becoming another expense imposed by the government. People might resist being forced to give a certain amount, but if they have the option to stop contributing, they will feel as though it is their decision to give and therefore enjoy the feeling of doing good out of the kindness of their hearts. Do you agree that such a policy would be plausible and beneficial, or do you believe another approach would be more effective? Do you think that Americans would be more resistant to the potential installation of a Charity Law than the Chinese were? Is it possible that a less extreme policy, such as one in which opting out is possible, could work in China, or does it seem that the perception of charities as corrupt would halt this as well?
If you would like to refer to the articles that I referenced, they can be found at http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/03/why-no-one-trusts-government-charities-in-china-anymore/273989/ and http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/04/world/asia/04china.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&.
When we had this discussion in class, I thought that it was a great idea for companies to automatically donate a certain percentage of a person’s paycheck. As sad as it is, I think some people in America are too lazy to opt in for programs. If they aren’t lazy, they might believe that they need the money while in all actually they don’t. With the opt out program, I feel that Americans would see that the percentage might not really make a difference in their lives and that the money could go to a different cause. The only problem I would ever have with the program would be where the money is going. I feel that there should be several different charities that the money goes to as to not upset others with charities that go against their moral ideals and values. I agree with you that there should be a way for workers to be able to select a cause that they are passionate about if not have a selection of charities to choose from. I really could not believe how China tried to make the “Charity Law” even if it was just a misunderstanding. It really does take the love out of giving and could really breed hatred, no matter the country. America would definitely not stand for something like that and there would be an uproar. If China revamped their charity program I believe there would be a better reception to an opt out program. Even if there was an opt out program, I think the Chinese would just opt out because of their principles.
ReplyDeleteCaileigh, I really like your idea of having opt-out money go to several different organizations. My problem with the opt-out program when we talked about it in class was that while my money would be doing good, it might not be going to a place that fits my specific values. I think that your proposition is an excellent solution to this problem. Perhaps at the beginning of every fiscal year, employees could nominate charities and vote on them. The top three organizations could receive the funds for that year. If those organizations still do not meet an employee's values, they can opt out and donate to another organization, or choose not to donate at all. The key here is choice.
DeleteLaura, I think that Americans would have been outraged if choice was eliminated from donating, as was proposed in China. It would have absolutely been considered another tax. With my proposed idea above, choice is reinstated, and I think it would be much better received by Americans.
However, I could see the negative stigma attached to opting out being an issue. What if someone wanted to opt out, not because they didn't want to donate at all, but because they wanted to donate to another cause? Or, what if someone had a legitimate financial emergency, such as a medical issue or a house fire? While opting out is an option, the social shaming associated with it may cause those who would choose to opt out to feel as if they did not, in fact, have a choice at all. Even if someone just does not want to participate, philanthropy should come from the heart, not from fear of social ridicule.
At the moment, I still cannot think of a good solution to that aspect of my proposal. Anyone else have ideas?
Natalie, I think that the program you proposed would definitely be more appealing. Adding an element of choice, and the changing of recipients each year would make employees more inclined to participate in an opt-out program. It would also allow for more employees to feel that their values and interests were being honored.
ReplyDeleteMy biggest issue with the opt-out program discussed in Singer's book was that philanthropy has always been from the heart. I'm worried, even though this program isn't technically "forcing" people to give, it still seems to be a little coercive. Yes, you can opt-out of it at any time… but like Natalie said, the social stigma attached to that may make people feel trapped. Do we want people to give because they are afraid of not-giving? Does the value of a gift change if the giver is doing it out of fear of embarrassment? I hate to say it... but I feel like this idea is peer-pressuring people into giving and for me, that takes away from the end result.
Hi Laura,
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with your stance on the American reception to such a program, as it will most likely have the effect of turning people off from contributing their fair share. I believe that those who give will do so because they truly want to and the motivation for making a difference is what will usually make sure that money is being spent effectively. This type of legislation would require a large amount of transparency in government, perhaps even more than already exists in the American system. If you are going to take a person's money to make some kind of positive change in the world, it is definitely necessary for you to justify how that money is being spent. On the other hand, as we briefly talked about in class over the last few weeks, a great portion of nonprofit funding is subsidized by the government, which gets all of its purchasing power from taxes. Therefore it can be argued that a large portion of the nonprofit sector already is made up of mandatory contributions.
I do like the idea of an opt-out system but if one is put in place I think it would be only fair to allow the employee to pick the charity they would want to donate to. Maybe a list of effective programs from which the employee could choose which one he or she would like to donate to. The policy introduced in China, whether it actually was a miscommunication or not, is very interesting and should be brought up in class.
Hey Laura, those were definitely some interesting articles indeed. As stated by Caleigh before, by creating a legislation that mandates "forced" giving, I believe that defeats the purpose of philanthropy all together. Better yet, I don't believe that philanthropy is a word to use in this situation because the Chinese citizens do not have a say in their decision, nor do they want to donate to such causes. If philanthropy is defined as a love for humanity, where is the "love" aspect in this act? Even if the money taken from the citizens were put into a good cause, I still do not support the action because it is a form of robbery.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the American opinion on a "Charity Law" I would think that most Americans will feel threatened by such laws as it would encroach upon their liberties. By forcing the American people to give up a portion of their paychecks for charity, they would be losing a freedom. Additionally, wouldn't such measures cause more resentment toward charities? I think such a law would do more harm than good because those who were originally interested in philanthropy might be discouraged. Also, one of the reasons why we have non-profit organizations is due to government failures. What would be the point of forced donation to government-supported charities rather than making it a function of the government?