The American Spectator

Print Email

Text Size

Special Report

(Page 2 of 2)

Since, as the Index explains, "Europeans have traditionally relied on government aid both for their own poor as well as the needy abroad," do Europeans' own aid policies and experiences distort their perception of American charity?

Rollins: I think that's a plausible conclusion to draw. The culture in which you grow up is so ingrained in you that it's usually hard for most people to view certain issues outside that prism. If you're used to your own government responding to people's crises and needs, it's understandable why you'd expect the government of the most powerful country in the world to contribute the most. Which the U.S. government does do in absolute numbers, just not as a percentage of gross national income. In the same vein, many Americans -- who traditionally have relied more on private institutions like churches or neighborhood groups in time of need, and who expect to do more themselves -- may have a hard time understanding why private assistance doesn't seem to count in the eyes of Europeans, why it has to come officially from the government.

The Index sheds light on one often-overlooked aspect of international philanthropy: Immigrant workers "remittances," or money sent back to their home country. [The World Bank estimates remittances have doubled over the last five years to $180 billion.] Why is this symbiotic relationship/dual benefit so often ignored? Is oft-derided American consumption, which as the Index notes, "indirectly pays the wages of immigrant workers through consumer purchases," more of a virtue than the public at large might suspect?

Rollins: Despite their magnitude, remittances are overlooked by many because they are a phenomenon that has not been well reported by official sources like the U.S. Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) which collect this data. For the most part, information on remittances has been buried in obscure reports. This is partly due to the difficulty in measuring remittances, which are often transferred through informal channels like personal carriers. That is beginning to change, though: More and more remittances are channeled through American banks, as some have started offering affordable transfer services to immigrants.

As for consumer behavior, while I don't think that buying lots of stuff is necessarily virtuous, healthy consumption is tied to a healthy economy, which means the demand for labor is higher, which means higher wages. Higher wages mean that immigrants and migrants can send more money back home. So consumption does have positive aspects and certainly shouldn't be demonized.

Do you believe there is something to be said for private charity given of free will as opposed to government aid, which by necessity is coercively given via taxes?

Rollins: Absolutely. We at the Center for Global Prosperity believe that, while there is a place for government aid, both domestically and abroad, government money shouldn't, where at all possible, be the only dollar on the table. Private charity can often be more flexible, and more targeted than government assistance. Private volunteerism means doctors and scientists and builders and other experts in their field who donate their time and knowledge, instead of government bureaucrats being paid to advise on topics of which they often know little. Private philanthropy, more often than not has the longer view in mind, not just short-term relief. It's private money and goods, and private donations of time and expertise that foster peer-to-peer relationships, and lay the groundwork for lasting institutions.

topics:
Taxes, Israel, United Nations