Something I think about often is why people decide that they want to be involved in international issues.  What makes people get out their cheque book or attend a fundraising event?  And then the next question becomes what does this input from the average person do within development.  It seems to me that both questions are linked, with the why we give really affecting the impact of what we give.  For example, if we give a present, we hope that it’s something the recipient will love.  On the other hand, if we are making an investment, we want to be pretty sure that there will be a return.

I just learned about Beyond Good Intentions, a blog about what works in international aid.  Before even getting to the content, I was caught by the name.  There seems to be a huge emphasis on ‘aid effectiveness’ when it comes to governments giving grants to other governments.  But what about when individuals give?  If charity is passe for bilateral and multilateral donors (like Canada, or the World Bank), why isn’t it passe for individuals?  How do we think about our own individual ‘aid effectiveness’?

Catching up on some reading the other day I came across an article I’d flagged in October 2007’s The Atlantic on how to be a moral investor. I had some preconceived notions about conscientious investing, mostly along the lines of avoiding oil and weapons. Investments that avoid the social and environmental crises I learn about in school as much as possible. I must admit I was SO surprised (probably naively so) to realize that “moral investments” tend to be those that avoid contributions to the gaming, tobacco and alcohol industries. Clearly I should have known better and realized that morality lately is defined by the far right rather than the left. In my head, “morality” should go beyond our borders to include investments that affect humanity and environment on a world scale.

I’ve recently started learning about vulture capital, which seems to be a perfect example of immoral investment in my books.  I couldn’t believe that there was trade in Third World debt, that it is considered acceptable to loan shark on odious debt!  Interesting article in the Guardian  last October.