Conservation, similar to International Aid, is a well-intentioned industry fraught with inefficiencies. In this article, the authors explore many different issues facing the conservation industry from mis-allocated endangered species funding in the United States to ideas on how to get the most out of limited land acquisitions for sanctuaries. The authors highlight that the classical idea of “fencing-off” areas to prevent further environmental degradation is often wasted on large swaths of land with limited biodiversity, as in the American West, instead of being applied where more “bang for your buck” could be achieved, such as the Appalachians. As was the case in Poverty, Inc., where it was highlighted that ideologically motivated charitable efforts can run afoul of their stated purpose when inefficiencies begin to compound, the world of ecological conservation is likely in need of a makeover. The article concludes with a stinging indictment about the current conservation industry: “Dyed-in-the-wool greens who bridle at talk of ‘return on investment’ or ‘cost-benefit analysis’ need to grow up.” Through implementing some of the recommendations that this article proposes, conservation agencies may be able to accomplish more than ever before with their existing, if limited budgets, thereby saving plenty of green while saving their own “green.”
Full article here: https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2019/02/09/how-to-preserve-nature-on-a-tight-budget
The latest push to grow the game of ice hockey has not come from China, as the NHL predicted, but rather from countries in Africa. With the help of The Hockey Foundation, an Egyptian hockey team has started to make a push for the IIHF to recognize them as Egypt’s national team. Even with The Hockey Foundation’s help in getting equipment for the team and assistance with its application process, the teams still faces unreasonably high startup costs. Lowering barriers to entry and tariff rates would make it feasible for a league to form in Egypt and other parts of Africa, thereby creating more jobs for construction workers, coaches, referees, and many other local businesses.
As “Poverty, Inc.” argues, perhaps the best form of charity is charity which provides its subjects with the means to help themselves. There are countless examples of entrepreneurs working to make this idea a reality. Central to the argument of “Poverty, Inc.” is that charitable actions, while well-intentioned, actually create more issues than they solve. Citing TOMS Shoes, LLC and its donative actions, “Poverty, Inc.” argues that donations actually destroy local businesses and drive the local population further into crisis. However, is this phenomenon ubiquitous, or do the negative effects of charity manifest only in developing countries? As this separate article illustrates, donative charity still has its place. Specifically, these two article highlight the importance of differentiating between when charity and when entrepreneurship should be employed to assist local populations.