Tuesday was the second annual “One Day Without Shoes,” an event designed by Toms Shoes to raise awareness of the importance of shoes. Thousands participated by going barefoot, something that children in third-world countries do every day.
Toms Shoes' claim to fame is the buy-one-give-one model. When you buy a pair of the earth-friendly loafers, the company donates a pair of shoes to a child in a developing nation. Wearing shoes can prevent diseases transmitted through soil, helps prevent cuts and sores on the feet, and may even be a ticket to an education, since many schools require shoes as part of their dress code. No shoes means no school.
But do free shoes really help lift communities and countries out of poverty? It certainly makes a difference to the children that receive the shoes, but are they better off in the long run? Is it possible that donating clothing to impoverished nations actually hurts them rather than helps them?
Time Magazine explains:
Flooding the market with free goods could bankrupt the people who already sell them. Donating clothing is a sensitive topic in Africa because many countries' textile industries collapsed under the weight of secondhand-clothing imports that were introduced in the 1970s and '80s. "First you have destroyed these villages' ability to be industrious and produce cotton products, and then you're saying, 'Can I give you a T-shirt?' and celebrating about it?" says James Shikwati, director of the Nairobi-based Inter Region Economic Network, a think tank. "It's really like offering poison coated with sugar."
Interesting concept. It reminds me of the saying, “Give a man a fish, he’ll eat for a day; teach him to fish and he’ll eat for the rest of his life.” Simply giving a pair of shoes to a child will no doubt be immediately beneficial, but what happens when they wear out or are outgrown? The kid will still be living in poverty.
One company that's working to raise the standard of living in Africa is Oliberté Footwear. It uses local materials and employs Africans to stitch high-quality shoes. Founder Tal Dehtiar has been critical of Toms Shoes, claiming that its "charity" undermines local businesses in addition to “reinforcing stereotypes about the developing world.”
People want to help other people, but good intentions might not be enough. While Toms might be doing good work by giving shoes to children that need them, it doesn’t address the bigger issue of why they didn’t have shoes to begin with. Charity can sometimes act as a Band-Aid to the bigger problems of poverty. Real change can happen when we take the time to learn why communities can’t properly clothe their children, and we help them find ways to lift themselves out of destitution.
Image via tobyotter/Flickr
This Hot Dad Wants to Do Your Ironing
This Hot Dad Wants to Cook You Dinner
This Hot Dad Cooks AND Does the Dishes
Kanye West is Gay?! 
Comments 21
I think you're absolutely right. It relates to the phenomenom of touractivism (a terrible portmanteau of tourist and activism). When Western do-gooders go to these impoverished countries and provide free services in construction and other areas, they drive the local vendors out of business in spite of the touractivists' hearts being in the right place. I like the idea of microlending, It seems like a sound way to help them develop,
I knew that some comment like ^^^ that would pop up even though no where in this article did Jenny say she was certain about her opinion one way or another. She ASKED a question that has apparently been asked by numerous people in a position to see exactly how these handouts can be a negative instead of the positive they were meant to be... Do tell Amazing, how could you have any valid complaint about this article? NOTE I said Valid NOT a bash it because Jenny wrote it...
I'm not really sure how I feel either. On one hand I see how this could hinder but the mother in me wants those poor children to have shoes. I'm totally on the fence.
I also totally agree with Destiny. Amazing, that was a crappy thing to contribute.
I spent some time in Benin (West Africa) and the affects of 'charity' are sad to see. Many expect handouts when they see a foreigner. The Peace Corp volunteers struggle with making a project that is the people's. Otherwise they won't take care of it. The mind set is - you (the foreigner) put this up/gave this to me - you take care of it. Yes, many of these individuals can use some help, but we need to come up with ways that help in the long run too!
The Mayans may be on to something, I'm going to agree with something Jenny said. (I think a little piece of my liberal soul just died.) One effort that seems to be actually working is the "mico-loan". As little as $100.00 can be enough for a family to start a small business in some countries. For those to work of course you have to have someone willing to buy your product, making Jenny's point. BUT...my mother's heart is screaming, "isn't there a compromise in there somewhere that let's these babies have shoes and helps their parents become self sufficient at the same time?"
She was referring to the people IN THAT COUNTRY who already make those items, and if they are put out of business by foreign aid, it doesn't take a genius to see how that is detrimental to that country... You also must have missed this statement... "While Toms might be doing good work by giving shoes to children that need them, it doesn't address the bigger issue of why they didn’t have shoes to begin with"
Looks to me like she asked EXACTLY where the root of the problem comes from.
and your snark about her job and assuming you know anything about her family life and how she feels, just further proved my point. You bashed it because Jenny wrote it. That is truly amazing.