|
|
> The Generosity IndexT (GI) was conceived in 1997 as a concise way to
> summarize Massachusetts' and New England's greatest problem in philanthropy:
> that we have the nation's largest gap between our ranks in income and our
> ranks in charitable giving.
I can think of some obvious reasons why the states on top of the list
(Mississippi, etc) have a higher "generosity index" (according to this
measure) than those on the bottom (New England):
1. They have less prosperity in the first place, which means more need for
charity. (Without even going into their very real cultural problems that
discourage the preconditions for prosperity.) If you want to balance things,
wouldn't it make more sense to reduce the need for "generosity" in
Mississippi than to criticize Massachusetts for (comparatively) having its
act together?
2. Compared to wealth creation, charity is an ineffective way of dealing with
social problems. "Give a man a fish, and he eats that day. Teach a man to
fish, and he eats for a lifetime." If you invest in a startup company rather
than giving the money to a beggar, that doesn't count toward the generosity
index, but it can certainly accomplish a lot more!
3. New England, etc already have a lot of charitable infrastructure. Maybe
they are just saturated. It would be interesting to see the changes in the
generosity index over the last 200 years.
So I don't understand why this is a "problem".
-Sven-
|
Locked
