The Science Behind Our Generosity

Hello,

I work for an organization, the Santa Fe International Folk Art Market (www.folkartmarket.org). Through our work, we provide artisans from across the globe (for 2009- 165 artists from 47 countries) the opportunity to come to the U.S. and sell high quality folk art over a weekend (this year on July 11 &12).

Last year, booth sales averaged $16,300. Artists take home 90% of their earnings-- these earnings go directly to families and cooperatives working to improve the quality of life in their communities and as a reinvestment in their growing business enterprises. This experience is empowering for them and helps to build self-sufficient lifestyles.

If you are looking for a cause where your donation will provide direct support to a first-time artist to participate in this international Market-- this is it. Many have never left their villages and would not have an opportunity like this otherwise. Past experience indicates that that there will be great social returns on your investment in that artist.

You may learn more and make a secure on line gift at http://www.folkartmarket.org/index.php/support/C129/.

Thank you for your concern!

Best,

Laura Sullivan, Development Director
Santa Fe International Folk Art Market

of course the cost one pair of shoes do not make you rich or poor. ok i wanna donate a shoe but to whom. a poor child in africa or to whom... how can i trust charity organizations. i do not due to the salary of the employees in this organizations...

SInger does not discuss giving patterns based on efficacy or prceived efficiency:I tend to give where I can see the result was effective- rescue drowning child yes! give $200 to children's charity- less likely.
I tend to give to groups with a 80% sucess rate rather than a 20%- and it is true that this can lead to disproportionate effects sucha s saving 80 instead of 200. Still, most of us try to make out discretionary dollars go as far as possible- and this includes valuatons of efficiency.
ON a related note, I once heard the suggestion that a fine way to gauge a proper charitable percentage for your income and lifestyle was to pretend you had one extra child in your household - set aside one child's worth of food, books,toys,a couple of bigger ticket items like a bed and a desk. and donate tha cash. None of us would change our lives drasticaly if we sudenly discovered that our child's twin had been mistakenly left at a hospital and we were now just re-united. We'd live in the same house, but bunk the kids in together, eat pretty much the same way. All portions, gifts and clothes woudl suffer a small decrease - since there's another mouth to feed- but it's pretty small and manageable amount- And that's what to give.

Singer neglects to mention the perceived effectiveness of the charity- In the case of the drowning child- I know the child is saved. Giving $200 to an organization .... less sure it helps.
Singer also does not note the cost/benefit ration( which if another poster's quote is correct, Mr Singer has employed before) I'll give to an organization with a 80% success rate-even if smaller, than to one with a 20% rate.
I may be doing the math wrong-and organizations might want to remind me of this- but it is a reason to NOT give somemies.

It says more about who we are as humans when we accept that there are disabled or malformed people that need "extra" care and that we are willing to do it. Our statistical cleverness declaring one to be more worthy than another is twisted and lacking in wisdom.