
The help and harm of the “voluntourism” industry - wormold
http://wilsonquarterly.com/stories/the-help-and-harm-of-the-173-billion-voluntourism-industry/
======
superplussed
It's not a great article, but there are really big problems with
"voluntourism".

I lived in Nepal for 2 months, and met many "voluntourists". There was
actually a strange kind of divide between the voluntourists, who had paid
thousands of dollars to be able to teach at a school or work in an orphanage,
and the people who found themselves in Nepal for a variety of reasons and
wanted to do some good spontaneously. Simply put, the voluntourists didn't
want to listen to any evidence that what they were doing was having a net
negative effect on the local community.

But the problem is that voluntourists create profit opportunities for some
really bad people. To put it succinctly, I just found this paragraph leading
an article that discusses the problem [1]:

[...] volunteers in Nepal may be unknowingly contributing to a growing child
trafficking industry that enables fake orphanages to secure revenue from
foreigners while deliberately keeping children in destitute conditions.

I wanted to do some good while I was there, and met some volunteers of a local
school (all of whom had paid to be there), and told them I'd had some ideas
about how to teach computer literacy or programming to kids in Nepal. They
hooked me up with someone that took me to the school so that I could talk with
the principal, etc.

What I discovered was a group of people from the principal down to their
computer teacher that were openly hostile and disrespectful toward me. This is
too long of a story to get into here (maybe I should write a blog post about
this), but what I realized later was that the school was a very well-oiled
machine when it came to volunteers that were paying the school to teach
English. But they didn't really know what to do with this guy that showed up
offering to teach about computers, but wasn't paying anything.

My takeaway was that the for-profit volunteering industry must be crowding out
some well-meaning individuals who don't offer (corrupt) incentives to the
local organizations. At least this was my experience in Nepal.

[1] [https://newmatilda.com/2014/03/04/fake-orphanages-profit-
wes...](https://newmatilda.com/2014/03/04/fake-orphanages-profit-western-
volunteers)

~~~
forgetsusername
> _But they didn 't really know what to do with this guy that showed up
> offering to teach about computers, but wasn't paying anything._

Maybe it's just me, but I wouldn't know what to do with some guy/girl who flew
in off the street (while on vacation I presume) and said they wanted to teach
computers, either.

Should they rearrange everything to make room for you, or be skeptical? I'd
probably do the latter.

~~~
superplussed
Nope, I wasn't on vacation but living there open-endedly at the time. You are
also missing the point which is that when organizations become corrupted by
these payments, they aren't any longer operating for the greater good, but to
line their pockets. The story was more complex than I'd like to go into here,
but they definitely acted outside of the best interest of their school and the
kids in the way they treated me.

~~~
Freeboots
Volunteer recruiter in Cambodia here;

There are definitely 'organisations' out there that are purely in it to profit
directly from volunteer 'programme fees', so your experience doesnt surprise
me.

On the other hand, without saying its true of your case, it is also
unreasonable to expect a school to automatically welcome some random off the
street, who has been there only 2 months and does not have a definite plan to
stay or leave, who may or may not be qualified in either the area they intend
to teach or in teaching itself (which is a thing, teaching is not easy). Your
experience sounds more hostile than that, and i dont doubt they were unwilling
to work with you for dubious reasons; however, legitimate reasons do exist.

------
todd8
I traveled to a remote town in Hungary and worked with other Habitat for
Humanity volunteers for ten days. I certainly enjoyed the experience, and
working with the families that would ultimately end up occupying the homes we
were building was a unique and memorable experience.

I understand the economic principle of comparative advantage, and I felt like
this was economically an inefficient way to provide housing to low income
Hungarians. I'm not an experienced carpenter, and I could have easily paid for
three real carpenter's to work in Hungary in my place by simply donating the
income I would have generated by working at home at my ordinary job rather
than traveling to Hungary myself. In a technical sense, I was hurting rather
than helping the overall world economy by not doing what I was best at.
Knowing all this ahead of time, I was skeptical of this voluntourism trip that
a friend of mine had talked me into.

Working in Hungary for ten days, with the group of around twenty other people
from the USA, gave me time to reflect on my decision to take on the volunteer
work. I still believe that it isn't an economically efficient way to build the
houses--we were amateur builders. However, what my simple economic thinking
about the trip didn't account for was the more emotional impacts that the
volunteering had on the participants and beneficiaries. (One of the
requirements on the recipients of the homes is that they work on the home
being built for them too until it is finished.)

The volunteers in the group all seemed to have a very positive experience
doing the work. It was satisfying to see the progress we made, it was
satisfying to work with a team of interesting people of many different
backgrounds, it was fun to take meals together and socialize in the evenings
together, and it was heart warming to meet the clearly grateful families that
would end up in the houses. These, to some extent narcissistic, rewards seem
to be a key factor in the success of Habitat for Humanity: _people like doing
it and keep going back_.

I've been dragged to many charity events, dinners, galas, auctions, runs,
walks and so forth. I don't really enjoy them, but the experience of working
in Hungary despite the commitment of time and expense was something I'm glad I
did.

Furthermore, there were other important effects. I discovered that at first,
when Habitat had first arrived at the town, the people there wondered why the
workers from the US couldn't find jobs in their own country; they didn't
understand that people would volunteer rather than be paid to build homes.
Volunteering to help others apparently wasn't common in this previously
communist country. Seeing volunteers working on these homes in these
communities led some of the locals to pitch in too.

Finally, another benefit was the prolonged exposure to the people in the
community. We took swims at lunch time in the very nice community swimming
pool which seemed to be the town's main source of day time recreation, and we
hung out with the locals in the evening in a local pub that we could walk to.
Everywhere we went people were friendly and would make an effort to come up to
us and talk. I think it gave us a very positive view of the people of Hungary
and them a positive view of us and the United States as well.

------
asgard1024
I know many libertarians here will not like this comment, and it is slightly
OT, but I don't like charity. Charity is like weather, very unreliable and you
don't want modern economy rely on it (and often when needed, there is actually
too little charity). I think every society needs proper social
assistance/redistribution mechanisms; unfortunately, this is difficult (if not
impossible) to do without "coercion" (but I don't consider taxes to be a bad
thing).

In addition, I consider charity to be very condescending. It makes recipient
dependent, in terms of power relations, on donor. Many wealthy people use
charity to rationalize their empire building, and that's a symptom of this
power dynamics.

For example, I do find Linus Torvalds lot more charitable than Bill Gates.
Gates took money from one group of people (having them buy Windows) and used
this power to decide to give it to other group of people based on what he
thought is important. Torvalds just left the money on the table, so the
society could decide what to do with them. Even though I agree that Gates'
choices what to do with money are really good, Torvalds did pretty much the
same without the power grab. In other words, we are led to believe that Gates'
actions are better just because we can measure them (in terms of money spent),
but it's not obvious that is really the case.

(Just to quickly clarify - I am not against transfer of consumption pie to
people like Gates, I am against transfer of power they have in the society.
Money can designate both, unfortunately.)

Ultimately, I think charity is just a device for people to believe they are
better than they really are. If you absolutely have to do it, do it
anonymously without much ceremony, don't rationalize any power grabs with it
(for example, don't avoid paying taxes just in order to put the money to
charity), and let the recipient decide on their own what they want to do with
the money.

I guess the disagreements will come down to whether or not you trust the
society to do the right thing. But if you don't trust the society, why would
you want to be charitable at all?

Although this should be read with caution. The above only makes sense in
reasonably democratic societies. Then building a charity, with someone's name
attached, is a non-transparent power grab from what should be a transparent
democratic process. But in undemocratic society, there is really no
difference, and it may as well be better for a different wealthy individual to
decide. So in a sense the above is a first-world problem; charity is, in my
view, simply inferior technology compared to democratic consensus.

Finally (libertarians listen!), I think there are technology solutions that
could help to avoid relying on government only, but they are not much pursued.

~~~
michaelt

      I guess the disagreements will come down to whether or
      not you trust the society to do the right thing. But if
      you don't trust the society, why would you want to be
      charitable at all?
    

My country's society != my country's government != humanity as a whole.

I believe that giving £5000 worth of anti-malaria nets to people in countries
like Malawi and DRC [1] saves more lives than paying £5000 in tax, of which
only about £50 would end up in the foreign aid budget [2].

That's not because I think people are evil or society is bad - it's because
politicians are part of a system that imposes certain incentives, and they can
only do so much. Politicians simply think voters would vote them out of office
if they increased foreign aid at the expense of making substantial cuts to
health, welfare, education, policing, roads, and so on.

If I've identified what I believe is the most efficient way of doing good, why
introduce middlemen when at best they would do the same thing, and at worst
they might be ninety-nine percent less efficient?

    
    
      Ultimately, I think charity is just a device for people
      to believe they are better than they really are.
    

If a person legitimately wanted to become better than they are, how should
they go about it if not through generosity of spirit and action?

[1] [https://www.againstmalaria.com/](https://www.againstmalaria.com/) [2]
[http://www.theguardian.com/global-
development/2013/mar/20/uk...](http://www.theguardian.com/global-
development/2013/mar/20/uk-aid-spend-important-works)

~~~
asgard1024
I think I already addressed these objections, but let me try to be more
specific.

> If I've identified what I believe is the most efficient way of doing good,
> why introduce middlemen

Because (unless you arrived to your conclusion by asking people globally what
they need), you've just become the middleman! Then you are the one deciding
what's good for the others, not the recipients.

I think it's very tempting, and that's why people should take extra
precautions not to do it.

> Politicians simply think voters would vote them out of office if they
> increased foreign aid at the expense of making substantial cuts

(Assuming you avoid those $5K in taxes.) This is pretty much an age old
question whether it is morally acceptable to steal a loaf of bread to feed a
starving person.

What I am saying is that it is morally acceptable, but only as a kludge. What
you really should strive for is a society which doesn't face these moral
dilemmas. Likewise, I consider charity only a kludge. It can do good, but can
be done far better.

> If a person legitimately wanted to become better than they are, how should
> they go about it if not through generosity of spirit and action?

Assuming "honestly wanted to become better", I think do three things:

1\. If you want to be generous, do it through your own work (that you do for
living). That means do not cheat your customers, or even maybe decrease your
price. And it implies not trying to gain power or cheat other people in order
to do good - that's often a delusion.

2\. If you think your work doesn't have an impact it should, change your job.

3\. Alternatively, to help other people, help them get the more equal
political and economic power in having their own say about what their needs
are (so they can better share resources). (This also carries a lot of risk and
is more helpful than trying to figure out how to cheat on taxes. What I am
really saying: Subterfuge is allowed if other people benefit, not you - so
it's OK to break the laws and norms regarding point 3, not 1.)

All of them are very hard to do, because it's very hard to be honest with
yourself and not to think you can do better if you actually become a
middleman. And that's why I don't like charity - it's awfully tricky to get
right.

------
mattmanser
This is a terrible article. It's just someone whining for the sake of it.

They can't even find actual harm, the worst they've got is some people don't
buy local health insurance because they know volunteer health workers will
come in a few months.

There's even a bizarrely racist paragrpah where the author bemoans white
people helping black people. Because the volunteers can obviously help choose
the colour their own skin is...

Clickbait.

~~~
DanBC
I'm surprised you have such a strongly negative reaction.

"Volunteering holidays can do more harm than good" is not a new concept, and
isn't particularly controversial. Floods of rich white low-skilled western
volunteers with continual churn are not what is needed in most situations.
This is especially true if those volunteers over-estimate their skills and
ability to make any real difference.

2010:
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/hubs/gapyear/8107555/Volun...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/hubs/gapyear/8107555/Volunteer-
holidays-do-more-harm-than-good.html)

2010:
[http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/nov/14/orphans...](http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/nov/14/orphans-
cambodia-aids-holidays-madonna)

2013:
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22294205](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22294205)

~~~
mattmanser
Cherry picking some articles is a waste of both our times.

Volunteering isn't all bad, but just like almost anything in the world, there
is some bad and obviously where there's money there's going to be corruption.

This article has absolutely no facts or even anecdotes to back it up, it's
just a big whine designed to appeal to self-righteous suckers who can only see
the bad in the world.

------
veddox
Like superplussed said, not a great article, but one that raises valid points.
Having grown up in the expat community of sub-Saharan Africa and later spent a
year working there, I've had my own experiences with these voluntourists and
heard plenty of stories from old-timers in the field. Just two of these here:

Every few months, colleagues of ours would get a "team" from abroad, sent to
them courtesy of their organization. That meant: a dozen young, inexperienced
western adults descending on them for two or three weeks to "help out". The
first 1 1/2 weeks would be spent doing odd jobs at the orphanage, perhaps
putting up a new toilet block or something like that. The next week would be
spent on holiday - visiting one of our big national tourist sites. On the face
of it, yes, the team did do something useful. But what were the hidden costs?
Most importantly, time. The long-term couple that was usually in charge of the
orphanage had to devote big chunks of their time per team for planning:
planning how to transport the team around, planning how to accommodate the
team, planning what to do with the team, etc. Then of course the team needed
constant attention and supervision, not to mention accompanying on their
tourist trip. All amounting to several weeks of time that could have been
spent a lot more profitably. Also, consider the money aspect: each team member
probably paid around $2000 - $5000 for the whole trip. What if that money had
gone directly to the project? They could have done a lot more than just
putting up a new toilet block (which, by the way, could have been done a lot
cheaper by local workers, thus also helping the local economy).

Apart from this indirect harm caused by voluntourists, there can be direct
harm as well. The project I was involved in once had a pretty major staff
crisis following some indecent behaviour of a short-term visitor towards a
local girl. Said visitor had just come for two weeks to have a look around and
help out a little, so we hadn't given him any cultural training (which was an
organizational failure, in retrospect). He didn't realize that his behaviour
towards the girl, which would have been fine in Europe, was deemed very
inappropriate in the local cultural context. The result was, however, that the
girl's grandmother, a vital member of our team, felt publicly shamed by her
granddaughter's behaviour. (Public shaming is one of the worst things that can
happen to an African.) Almost before we realized what was going on, she had
sent in her letter of resignation and was packing her bags to leave for her
home town. It took a week's patient negotiation by other local staff to get
her to stay.

So yes, voluntourists can cause a lot of problems, even when their intentions
and motivations are impeccable. There is a place for volunteers to serve
abroad, but it needs to be done in close communication with the people on the
ground who know what is really needed. Plus, if you're thinking in a time span
of weeks, that is almost definitely too short a time to do anything
meaningful. If you really want to help, come for six months or a year, then
we'll talk again.

~~~
IkmoIkmo
> Also, consider the money aspect: each team member probably paid around $2000
> - $5000 for the whole trip. What if that money had gone directly to the
> project?

I think that's really the main point here.

For example I'm familiar with Morocco, a country with significant unemployment
issues even for those who are well educated. You can hire a worker there for
$10 to do manual labor for an entire day of 10 hours of work (pretty insane).
So this notion that $3000 goes towards 6 days of work for 5 hours of work each
day, just makes no financial sense. Instead of paying $30 for 30 hours of
labor from someone who has experience in e.g. construction, we're seeing two
orders of magnitude, $3000, spent on an equivalent amount of hours to a person
without experience in construction.

You might as well take 1% of your budget, pay a local worker and just go on a
holiday and you'd not only contribute as many hours, but those hours are more
effective, you're also creating a local job, local income and tax revenues.
(well the latter might be a bit optimistic seeing as taxation either isn't
enforced, or voided for low-income groups, but you get the point). Or hell,
take 5% of the budget.

I tried to persuade my girlfriend when she left for India on a similar project
last summer to do something else. At least that was a 3 month project and she
did quite a bit of teaching and was able to do a bit of knowledge transfer.

I think that makes the most sense though, knowledge transfer, i.e. an engineer
or a doctor who teaches engineering or health practices in places where
there's knowledge deficiencies. There's quite a bit of that going on, it's
also far from without flaws but it feels much more structural. Engineers
without borders has been pretty transparent about their failures in the past
while not giving up. Almost anything else and you're really just overpaying
rich people.

------
bruceb
It is a terrible article because the headline is false.

"The voluntourism industry, worth about $173 billion annually"

No it isn't.

If you click through to the PDF and the source the PDF cites you will find
what is actually stated is "global youth travel industry is currently worth
USD 173 billion per annum..."

Not every young traveler is volunteering.

~~~
coldtea
> _It is a terrible article because the headline is false._

This is a terrible comment, because it implies that you can judge the whole of
an article (which might contain lots of useful information, observations etc)
from its headline.

Actually, the headline in most news outlets is not even written or chosen by
the journalist. Traditionally it's chosen by the editor of the outlet (and
it's often made to attract readers).

~~~
sunir
The headline exists so readers can judge the article before reading it.
Complaining about a clickbait headline is fair.

~~~
coldtea
> _Complaining about a clickbait headline is fair._

Only when it stops to the headline and doesn't make assumptions about the
quality of the article.

Please explain in what universe the statement "It is a terrible article
because the headline is false" is true.

~~~
dang
That statement is obviously excessive, but it's helpful to have pointed out
that the $173B number is false. I thought when I saw it that it sounded high,
but it didn't occur to me to check. We've taken it out of the title.

As for titles in general, there's no standing in the way of the dreaded title
fever.

------
csydas
Never mind the incorrect term in the second sentence (I'm relatively sure it's
language-immersion...I mean, I guess a language emersion course could be
described as one that takes you out of your native language, but I've never
seen it described that way).

Ultimately, the article just misses the forest for the trees with statements
like "While the foreign volunteers were well-intentioned, they misplaced their
focus; it was necessary to build stable homes, but the real problem was
crippling, multigenerational poverty. Lacking skills and employment to improve
their condition, Haitian families continued to beg in the streets in the
absence of tourists. The volunteers came and left but nothing had really
changed."

The author is so unaware that they don't seem to realize what they even wrote.
The people needed houses and were poor. Are we really supposed to believe that
because building houses did not fix both issues that it should not have been
done at all?

~~~
veddox
Sometimes working on the wrong problem is worse than working on none at all.
Especially if there are limited resources available.

