I think there is a lot of room for the faith community to help lead the charge on productive aid and development. In many religions, a care for one's community and others less fortunate than themselves is a central tenant of service to others.
One benefit of non-government organizations, such as groups in the faith community, is they are not as tied to the politics of foreign aid as a governmental body is. Freedom from elections can allow groups to pursue what they believe is the best course of action is. There is also the added benefit/limitation of not being tied to tax dollars. While there is a limit to how much a parish or congregation can raise to finance service efforts, it is not determined by any division of the federal budget.
There is a potential downside for developing nations who become aided by religious groups - the lack of support for birth control and condoms to prevent the spread of STDs.
Faith-driven aid and investments in developing nations helps to fill a large hole for many in poverty stricken countries. Initiatives like the above link can certainly help to bring awareness to many of the challenges facing development and poverty in todays society.
"In a recent Gallup poll, 82% of those surveyed in sub-Saharan Africa said their most trusted institution was a religious organisation (Gallup 2008)."
I agree that there is a lot of room for the faith community to help. The poor in the developing world are not the only people who place most (or all) of their trust in the spiritual leaders. Spiritual leaders have a lot of sway in their respective community. This means that some programs, if backed by faith-based organizations, may be more effectively implemented in the people in that community trust the leader or leaders associated with the program. They may participate in something they would have otherwise been hesitant to take part in simply because their local missionary said that it would be good for them.
This also means that spiritual leaders can be more effective in raising funds here at home. People are more likely to give money to an organization with their own religious bent; to them, it's doing double duty--saving people's lives and their souls.
Also, I agree with Jarrett: the freedom from government ties is beneficial in the discretion it allows. There is more leeway for creativity. The limited funds generate incentive to implement programs that really make a difference rather than just throwing money away.
Jesus charges his followers to love their neighbors as themselves. (Matthew 22:39, Mark 12:31) and Proverbs 14 (21 and 31) says that those who help the needy are blessed. One of the 5 pillars (zakat) of the Islamic faith is to give alms to help the needy. (It's a religious obligation, not voluntary charity.) About half of the world's population follows one of these two religions. (http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html)
Faith communities sound great in theory but don't seem practical. Perhaps in terms of education they could make the largest difference, informing individuals about diseases such as malaria, or the importance of proper nutrition to child development. In terms of faith communities influencing policy and creating a more faith based market, this seems highly unlikely. Getting individuals to trust the financial institutions around them is important, but in many developing countries these institutions are absent to begin with. Major institutional reform is necessary first before faith could play any role in the market.
To me these faith communities would only be able to play a small informative role. Funding would probably create a problem in terms of the overall effectiveness of a faith community. However, Kelli's idea of more effective programs due to limited funding is possible, but to me unlikely. Having said that, faith is relevant when discussing development but I do not see it as the missing link.
I agree with Jarett that faith communities could play a major role in boosting awareness for specific issues such as disease. Their lack of political ties should make the information provided genuine and there will be no side goals such as party publicity but rather the well-being of the individual will be the main focus.
Faith communities sound great in theory but don't seem practical. Perhaps in areas of education they could make the biggest difference, informing groups about diseases such as malaria, or the importance of proper nutrition to child development. In terms of faith communities influencing policy and creating a more faith based market, this seems highly unlikely. Getting individuals to trust the financial institutions around them is important, but in many developing countries these institutions are absent to begin with.
To me these faith communities would only be able to play a small informative role. Funding would probably create a problem in terms of the overall effectiveness of a faith community. However, Kelli's idea of more effective programs due to limited funding is possible but unlikely. Having said that, faith is relevant when discussing development but I do not see it as the missing link.
I agree with Jarett that faith communities could play a major role in boosting awareness for specific issues such as disease. Their lack o f political ties should make the information provided genuine and there will be no side goals such as party publicity but rather the well-being of the individual will be the main focus.
This just goes to show that development economics is not a science that can be entirely removed from values and human ethics. At first it seems surprising to pair religion and economics, but it seems that there may certainly be some positive effects. While faith communities shouldn't be expected to miraculously solve all problems right away, I definitely agree that this may be a good way to educate people. The fact that religious communties are so strongly trusted in developing countries seems to suggest that messages shared by religious institutions might be better received than messages spread by government officials or foreign sources. Finding a community that people feel that they can trust could definitely promote a solidarity that would lead to beneficial education about things such as nutrition and disease. This reminds me of the educational programs that go along with some of the conditional cash transfers that we have studies, but if religious institutions are at the heart of people's lives in many developing countries, education through faith could have an even bigger impact.
Values and morals cannot be ignored in our society. They are building blocks that make our society worth living. Religious beliefs no doubt can go a long way in contributing to social good. Professor Blunch's current work in progress looks at how the desire to read the bible is encouraging literacy in Ghana. This is one of several examples that one could quote showing the important role that religious organizations could play.
However, from experience we know that religious organizations often also have strict religious beliefs not all of which are compatible with social benifits.
So, while we can certainly use faith and religion as an aid to social growth and development we have to wary of too much reliance on such organizations, especially in developing countries.
My only problem with these faith based communities is how reminiscent they are of efforts to proselytize indigenous populations throughout time. Think Spanish settlers in the Americas and French/Dutch colonists in Africa. These efforts had extremely negative repercussions for local communities. I won't dispute the argument that the negative consequences of religious intervention in these examples was largely a function of the abhorrent economic initiatives employed by these settlers, but the analogy seems to still hold water in its comparison. While I believe that faith and religion are highly important, I think we have to remain highly cognizant of local cultures and their individual religious perogatives and not try to impose our value systems or morals on outside communities.
I think the most important idea in this piece is that "economics is too important to be left to economists." Much of our progress in recent years has come from "thinking outside the box" and what better way to come up with fresh ideas than asking people in other disciplines. Certainly there is an enormous level of knowledge in the many sub-divisions within economics and brilliant economists' minds have spurred great progress, but colleagues trained to think from a different perspective will also have a lot to offer.
Also, I liked the comment about having the discussion be out in the open so that it can have a direct impact on those taking action. We need to be careful of too many round table discussions whose ideas are never shared with the people who actually want to do something.
Finally, with any faith-based organization, we need to be aware of other religious cultures and respectful of those ideologies.
Doing what is morally correct is a key aspect of development. Religious communities exist to give their followers some sort of moral code to abide by and follow. When key religious figures stress the importance of aiding the less fortunate, their congregations tend to listen and do what is morally right. As a Catholic, I don't know how many sermons I have set through that highlight the plight and devastation to which those around the world are subjected. I've participated in many fundraisers through my parish that go directly towards aiding these types of people in Africa, etc.
The problem is that these types of micro-efforts are miniscule when compared to what is necessary for substantial change/development to occur for the masses (no religious pun intended). Quite possibly the most important aspect of religion in this whole equation is its power to uplift. For all these people who deal with the hardships of hunger, poverty, and despair on a daily basis, religion can give them an outlet, as well as faith in a deeper meaning to life's struggles.
As a Christian, I'm very glad to be reading headlines like these. As Kelli mentioned, the Bible calls Christians to help the poor in their troubles. Presumably other religions have similar directives.
Many Christians, especially conservatives, do not emphasize enough the need to care for the poor. Hopefully the church will respond to the increased need by giving more people and dollars.
Christianity at least calls its adherents to far more than giving money. "Caring" for the poor requires personal investments and sacrifices in those less-fortunate. Many Christians are too selfish to give so much and I think we are all the worse for that selfishness.
Since faith is a huge component of life to most--82%--living in sub-saharan Africa, I find channeling development energies through places of worship to be not only a feasible, but positive idea. If religious leaders, who most assume to have the utmost wisdom and general intelligence coupled with trustworthiness, were to help support and endorse programs vital to development, real change could be realized. Logan brings up a good point to keep in mind, however, we must be sure to go about this in a way sensitive to their culture and religious beliefs, not what we see as best. This could potentially create a myriad of unnecessary problems.
I think that religious organizations can definitely make an impact on the developing world, but I think they should be a supplement to the already established efforts, not a substitute because of the problems mentioned in previous posts (controversy over birth control, imposing values, etc.). Obviously as we see through microfinance, every dollar counts and one more person helping can make a huge difference. By involving religious organizations, we are increasing the amount of attention paid to the plight of people in the developing world, which is crucial in order for change to occur. As was mentioned above, caring for others is central to many religions and by appealing to people's emotions, I think there is a greater chance that they will be moved to act.
This is really an interesting concept. And as many have stated, it really does make a ton of sense when you look at the high percentage of people who are part of a religious body. Another benefit of giving money to these churches or religious organizations is that there might be less rampant corruption. While I know this may not be true in all cases, I would hope that giving money to a religious leader would be more effective than giving it to a corrupt government official who will spend the money on whatever he deems worthy.
There would of course be the inherent problem of deciding who will receive aid. There is not enough money for every church or every religious body, so how would we go about deciding who got the money?
I think that this is an interesting concept, but I agree with what Tara and John were saying in terms of religious organizations being more effective as a supplement to the government and other agencies. There are many problems that are foreseeable with religious organizations being the prime aid for developing countries, like who receives aid, what is the aid given towards, and whether they could even handle this large scale.
Since 82% of people in Sub-Saharan Africa viewed religious organizations as their most trusted institution, I think that religious organizations can definitely have a positive impact on development. They would be best suited for things like educational awareness programs on disease, as well as support and relief for the poor who are suffering. Things like local soup kitchens or anything that could help everyday life would be beneficial for religious organizations to do.
"Have our financial markets suffered from a lack of values?"---After the recent market collapse it is blatently evident that the market has been lacking values for some time. "Should faith communities be putting the poor back on the agenda?" Historically the church has forgotten the essence of Christ's message of caring for the weak and poor, and has instead focused on individuals "living a sanctified life" and "how my life and my actions are examples of my devotion to God". In reality, the church has lost 75% of the message of the gospel if it is not habitually striving to help the sick and the weak.
I think that faith in the marketplace and faith in development is pivotal, but based on what I have seen in mainstream Christianity, the church needs to get its priorities right. Some of the most socially active denominations are deemed "too liberal" and as having a "biblical interpretation bordering on hypocritical" by their more conservative bretheren. It is a pity, because like this economics article is describing, our world needs more faith in the marketplace
Faith is always a tricky subject. It is a personal matter and when it is involved with matters such as foreign aid, many questions can be raised. A big question for me is always how much of the money is going to actually helping the poor people and how much is going towards "propaganda" efforts to convince those poor who are helped to join that particular faith group. This is a similar question that I bring about any charitable organization as often they have been found to be more for profit than anyone could guess. Faith can be a great motivator to bring people to donate and to bring those who require donations together under one roof. It is simply when faith us used for personal gains that it becomes an evil and unfortunately, there are many who have already discovered that there is much profit to be made in the faith industry.
Faith is an essential tool for developing nations. In Rwanda I was shocked at how well everyone got along after what happened in 1994. Neighbors were Hutus and Tootsies, and there was peace; shaky peace, but peace nonetheless. THe president said to forgive. He talked about faith related principles. Without religious institutions it is highly unlikely that this peace could have remained. Faith also drives a large amount of giving. Most importantly, religion breeds hope, trust, and a sense of community.
What strikes me about the discipline of development economics is the potential for creativity and innovation. It is a field of research and policy development that reacts daily to the global environment. Something that the Tony Blair Faith Foundation brings to light is a renewed emphasis on value-based economics. So often, we are drawn to concrete statistics of economic growth as indicators of development, and we lose sight of the true targets of development policies - the people. The role of faith in community development seems to be a valid and logical option for poverty alleviation. The article cites several seminars to discuss these matters further - the role of faith communities on conflict resolution, healthcare and education services and environmental sustainability.
Like others have said, I can see religious organizations playing a positive role in development. Though these organizations may not necessarily have the financial means to help development efforts, there are ample opportunities to help out. Perhaps these organizations could most effectively help their followers by offering education and related services. If the members feel strongly about their faith and the organization they belong to, then these efforts could have tremendous benefits.
As we have noted in class, development goes beyond income growth. Standard of living can reflect a wide array of things, but it really boils down to happiness. Religion has a variety of effects on a society, especially those with low incomes. In addition to creating a sense of community, it offers a glimmer of hope in poor circumstances that can motivate a population in ways that economic incentives fall short. Additionally, helping developing countries fits well into the sense of social responsibility fostered by most religions. For these reasons, a certain level of participation by religious groups should be encouraged, because it will ultimately result in increased productivity and a higher standard of living in the truest sense.
Religion by necessity focuses on the afterlife. Poverty unfortunately is in the here and now. So there is a disconnect here -- and this disconnect is usually to the detriment of the poor. In addition, e.g. the islamic focus on community also implies the inseparability of church and state. This is a dangerous way to do "good" -- since the doing "good" necessarily has to distinguish between the in group and the "other". This is a recipe for conflict. In other words the use of faith based groups for economic development as a matter of policy is quite dangerous.
I think there is a lot of room for the faith community to help lead the charge on productive aid and development. In many religions, a care for one's community and others less fortunate than themselves is a central tenant of service to others.
ReplyDeleteOne benefit of non-government organizations, such as groups in the faith community, is they are not as tied to the politics of foreign aid as a governmental body is. Freedom from elections can allow groups to pursue what they believe is the best course of action is. There is also the added benefit/limitation of not being tied to tax dollars. While there is a limit to how much a parish or congregation can raise to finance service efforts, it is not determined by any division of the federal budget.
There is a potential downside for developing nations who become aided by religious groups - the lack of support for birth control and condoms to prevent the spread of STDs.
Faith-driven aid and investments in developing nations helps to fill a large hole for many in poverty stricken countries. Initiatives like the above link can certainly help to bring awareness to many of the challenges facing development and poverty in todays society.
"In a recent Gallup poll, 82% of those surveyed in sub-Saharan Africa said their most trusted institution was a religious organisation (Gallup 2008)."
ReplyDeleteI agree that there is a lot of room for the faith community to help. The poor in the developing world are not the only people who place most (or all) of their trust in the spiritual leaders. Spiritual leaders have a lot of sway in their respective community. This means that some programs, if backed by faith-based organizations, may be more effectively implemented in the people in that community trust the leader or leaders associated with the program. They may participate in something they would have otherwise been hesitant to take part in simply because their local missionary said that it would be good for them.
This also means that spiritual leaders can be more effective in raising funds here at home. People are more likely to give money to an organization with their own religious bent; to them, it's doing double duty--saving people's lives and their souls.
Also, I agree with Jarrett: the freedom from government ties is beneficial in the discretion it allows. There is more leeway for creativity. The limited funds generate incentive to implement programs that really make a difference rather than just throwing money away.
Jesus charges his followers to love their neighbors as themselves. (Matthew 22:39, Mark 12:31) and Proverbs 14 (21 and 31) says that those who help the needy are blessed. One of the 5 pillars (zakat) of the Islamic faith is to give alms to help the needy. (It's a religious obligation, not voluntary charity.) About half of the world's population follows one of these two religions. (http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html)
Obviously, faith can have an impact.
Faith communities sound great in theory but don't seem practical. Perhaps in terms of education they could make the largest difference, informing individuals about diseases such as malaria, or the importance of proper nutrition to child development. In terms of faith communities influencing policy and creating a more faith based market, this seems highly unlikely. Getting individuals to trust the financial institutions around them is important, but in many developing countries these institutions are absent to begin with. Major institutional reform is necessary first before faith could play any role in the market.
ReplyDeleteTo me these faith communities would only be able to play a small informative role. Funding would probably create a problem in terms of the overall effectiveness of a faith community. However, Kelli's idea of more effective programs due to limited funding is possible, but to me unlikely. Having said that, faith is relevant when discussing development but I do not see it as the missing link.
I agree with Jarett that faith communities could play a major role in boosting awareness for specific issues such as disease. Their lack of political ties should make the information provided genuine and there will be no side goals such as party publicity but rather the well-being of the individual will be the main focus.
Faith communities sound great in theory but don't seem practical. Perhaps in areas of education they could make the biggest difference, informing groups about diseases such as malaria, or the importance of proper nutrition to child development. In terms of faith communities influencing policy and creating a more faith based market, this seems highly unlikely. Getting individuals to trust the financial institutions around them is important, but in many developing countries these institutions are absent to begin with.
ReplyDeleteTo me these faith communities would only be able to play a small informative role. Funding would probably create a problem in terms of the overall effectiveness of a faith community. However, Kelli's idea of more effective programs due to limited funding is possible but unlikely. Having said that, faith is relevant when discussing development but I do not see it as the missing link.
I agree with Jarett that faith communities could play a major role in boosting awareness for specific issues such as disease. Their lack o f political ties should make the information provided genuine and there will be no side goals such as party publicity but rather the well-being of the individual will be the main focus.
This just goes to show that development economics is not a science that can be entirely removed from values and human ethics. At first it seems surprising to pair religion and economics, but it seems that there may certainly be some positive effects.
ReplyDeleteWhile faith communities shouldn't be expected to miraculously solve all problems right away, I definitely agree that this may be a good way to educate people. The fact that religious communties are so strongly trusted in developing countries seems to suggest that messages shared by religious institutions might be better received than messages spread by government officials or foreign sources.
Finding a community that people feel that they can trust could definitely promote a solidarity that would lead to beneficial education about things such as nutrition and disease. This reminds me of the educational programs that go along with some of the conditional cash transfers that we have studies, but if religious institutions are at the heart of people's lives in many developing countries, education through faith could have an even bigger impact.
Values and morals cannot be ignored in our society. They are building blocks that make our society worth living. Religious beliefs no doubt can go a long way in contributing to social good. Professor Blunch's current work in progress looks at how the desire to read the bible is encouraging literacy in Ghana. This is one of several examples that one could quote showing the important role that religious organizations could play.
ReplyDeleteHowever, from experience we know that religious organizations often also have strict religious beliefs not all of which are compatible with social benifits.
So, while we can certainly use faith and religion as an aid to social growth and development we have to wary of too much reliance on such organizations, especially in developing countries.
-Aparajita
My only problem with these faith based communities is how reminiscent they are of efforts to proselytize indigenous populations throughout time. Think Spanish settlers in the Americas and French/Dutch colonists in Africa. These efforts had extremely negative repercussions for local communities. I won't dispute the argument that the negative consequences of religious intervention in these examples was largely a function of the abhorrent economic initiatives employed by these settlers, but the analogy seems to still hold water in its comparison. While I believe that faith and religion are highly important, I think we have to remain highly cognizant of local cultures and their individual religious perogatives and not try to impose our value systems or morals on outside communities.
ReplyDeleteI think the most important idea in this piece is that "economics is too important to be left to economists." Much of our progress in recent years has come from "thinking outside the box" and what better way to come up with fresh ideas than asking people in other disciplines. Certainly there is an enormous level of knowledge in the many sub-divisions within economics and brilliant economists' minds have spurred great progress, but colleagues trained to think from a different perspective will also have a lot to offer.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I liked the comment about having the discussion be out in the open so that it can have a direct impact on those taking action. We need to be careful of too many round table discussions whose ideas are never shared with the people who actually want to do something.
Finally, with any faith-based organization, we need to be aware of other religious cultures and respectful of those ideologies.
Doing what is morally correct is a key aspect of development. Religious communities exist to give their followers some sort of moral code to abide by and follow. When key religious figures stress the importance of aiding the less fortunate, their congregations tend to listen and do what is morally right. As a Catholic, I don't know how many sermons I have set through that highlight the plight and devastation to which those around the world are subjected. I've participated in many fundraisers through my parish that go directly towards aiding these types of people in Africa, etc.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that these types of micro-efforts are miniscule when compared to what is necessary for substantial change/development to occur for the masses (no religious pun intended). Quite possibly the most important aspect of religion in this whole equation is its power to uplift. For all these people who deal with the hardships of hunger, poverty, and despair on a daily basis, religion can give them an outlet, as well as faith in a deeper meaning to life's struggles.
As a Christian, I'm very glad to be reading headlines like these. As Kelli mentioned, the Bible calls Christians to help the poor in their troubles. Presumably other religions have similar directives.
ReplyDeleteMany Christians, especially conservatives, do not emphasize enough the need to care for the poor. Hopefully the church will respond to the increased need by giving more people and dollars.
Christianity at least calls its adherents to far more than giving money. "Caring" for the poor requires personal investments and sacrifices in those less-fortunate. Many Christians are too selfish to give so much and I think we are all the worse for that selfishness.
Since faith is a huge component of life to most--82%--living in sub-saharan Africa, I find channeling development energies through places of worship to be not only a feasible, but positive idea. If religious leaders, who most assume to have the utmost wisdom and general intelligence coupled with trustworthiness, were to help support and endorse programs vital to development, real change could be realized. Logan brings up a good point to keep in mind, however, we must be sure to go about this in a way sensitive to their culture and religious beliefs, not what we see as best. This could potentially create a myriad of unnecessary problems.
ReplyDeleteI think that religious organizations can definitely make an impact on the developing world, but I think they should be a supplement to the already established efforts, not a substitute because of the problems mentioned in previous posts (controversy over birth control, imposing values, etc.). Obviously as we see through microfinance, every dollar counts and one more person helping can make a huge difference. By involving religious organizations, we are increasing the amount of attention paid to the plight of people in the developing world, which is crucial in order for change to occur. As was mentioned above, caring for others is central to many religions and by appealing to people's emotions, I think there is a greater chance that they will be moved to act.
ReplyDeleteThis is really an interesting concept. And as many have stated, it really does make a ton of sense when you look at the high percentage of people who are part of a religious body. Another benefit of giving money to these churches or religious organizations is that there might be less rampant corruption. While I know this may not be true in all cases, I would hope that giving money to a religious leader would be more effective than giving it to a corrupt government official who will spend the money on whatever he deems worthy.
ReplyDeleteThere would of course be the inherent problem of deciding who will receive aid. There is not enough money for every church or every religious body, so how would we go about deciding who got the money?
I think that this is an interesting concept, but I agree with what Tara and John were saying in terms of religious organizations being more effective as a supplement to the government and other agencies. There are many problems that are foreseeable with religious organizations being the prime aid for developing countries, like who receives aid, what is the aid given towards, and whether they could even handle this large scale.
ReplyDeleteSince 82% of people in Sub-Saharan Africa viewed religious organizations as their most trusted institution, I think that religious organizations can definitely have a positive impact on development. They would be best suited for things like educational awareness programs on disease, as well as support and relief for the poor who are suffering. Things like local soup kitchens or anything that could help everyday life would be beneficial for religious organizations to do.
"Have our financial markets suffered from a lack of values?"---After the recent market collapse it is blatently evident that the market has been lacking values for some time. "Should faith communities be putting the poor back on the agenda?" Historically the church has forgotten the essence of Christ's message of caring for the weak and poor, and has instead focused on individuals "living a sanctified life" and "how my life and my actions are examples of my devotion to God". In reality, the church has lost 75% of the message of the gospel if it is not habitually striving to help the sick and the weak.
ReplyDeleteI think that faith in the marketplace and faith in development is pivotal, but based on what I have seen in mainstream Christianity, the church needs to get its priorities right. Some of the most socially active denominations are deemed "too liberal" and as having a "biblical interpretation bordering on hypocritical" by their more conservative bretheren. It is a pity, because like this economics article is describing, our world needs more faith in the marketplace
Faith is always a tricky subject. It is a personal matter and when it is involved with matters such as foreign aid, many questions can be raised. A big question for me is always how much of the money is going to actually helping the poor people and how much is going towards "propaganda" efforts to convince those poor who are helped to join that particular faith group. This is a similar question that I bring about any charitable organization as often they have been found to be more for profit than anyone could guess. Faith can be a great motivator to bring people to donate and to bring those who require donations together under one roof. It is simply when faith us used for personal gains that it becomes an evil and unfortunately, there are many who have already discovered that there is much profit to be made in the faith industry.
ReplyDeleteFaith is an essential tool for developing nations. In Rwanda I was shocked at how well everyone got along after what happened in 1994. Neighbors were Hutus and Tootsies, and there was peace; shaky peace, but peace nonetheless. THe president said to forgive. He talked about faith related principles. Without religious institutions it is highly unlikely that this peace could have remained.
ReplyDeleteFaith also drives a large amount of giving.
Most importantly, religion breeds hope, trust, and a sense of community.
What strikes me about the discipline of development economics is the potential for creativity and innovation. It is a field of research and policy development that reacts daily to the global environment. Something that the Tony Blair Faith Foundation brings to light is a renewed emphasis on value-based economics. So often, we are drawn to concrete statistics of economic growth as indicators of development, and we lose sight of the true targets of development policies - the people. The role of faith in community development seems to be a valid and logical option for poverty alleviation. The article cites several seminars to discuss these matters further - the role of faith communities on conflict resolution, healthcare and education services and environmental sustainability.
ReplyDeleteLike others have said, I can see religious organizations playing a positive role in development. Though these organizations may not necessarily have the financial means to help development efforts, there are ample opportunities to help out. Perhaps these organizations could most effectively help their followers by offering education and related services. If the members feel strongly about their faith and the organization they belong to, then these efforts could have tremendous benefits.
ReplyDeleteAs we have noted in class, development goes beyond income growth. Standard of living can reflect a wide array of things, but it really boils down to happiness. Religion has a variety of effects on a society, especially those with low incomes. In addition to creating a sense of community, it offers a glimmer of hope in poor circumstances that can motivate a population in ways that economic incentives fall short. Additionally, helping developing countries fits well into the sense of social responsibility fostered by most religions. For these reasons, a certain level of participation by religious groups should be encouraged, because it will ultimately result in increased productivity and a higher standard of living in the truest sense.
ReplyDeleteReligion by necessity focuses on the afterlife. Poverty unfortunately is in the here and now. So there is a disconnect here -- and this disconnect is usually to the detriment of the poor. In addition, e.g. the islamic focus on community also implies the inseparability of church and state. This is a dangerous way to do "good" -- since the doing "good" necessarily has to distinguish between the in group and the "other". This is a recipe for conflict. In other words the use of faith based groups for economic development as a matter of policy is quite dangerous.
ReplyDelete