Hands Off Our Houses (follow up on the $300 house idea)(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Hands Off Our Houses (follow up on the $300 house idea)
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/01/opinion/01srivastava.html?ref=opinion
21 comments
I feel like this article is an example of how a lot of charity and social businesses are half-baked at best.
First is the idea, mostly held by people at places like Dartmouth, that because these problems exist it must mean that nobody is trying to solve them. In reality, plenty of people are trying to solve them, its just difficult. This leads people to start their own charities that end up competing with each other for donations and thus it is difficult to develop the economies of scale that makes this stuff efficient.
The article mostly talks about the lack of market research. Its not difficult to ask someone 'What do you need' or 'Why don't you have running water' or 'Do you need your house to double as a workshop' and this would have helped guide the designs. A simple walk through and critical thinking would have shown designers that many people lived in apartments, and perhaps a 3000 dollar apartment building would get more use.
The article brings up putting local laborers out of business. I'm not sure I buy this argument against charity. The authors had spent previous paragraphs explaining the need for customization. The builders would not automatically be out of work if people bought prefab houses.
I guess in conclusion I think a lot of people who go into charity have the 'saving the world' attitude that makes them arrogant. This leads to people trying the same thing over and over again, and while competition is great in a market economy, when non-profits are competing for donations it leads to the non-profits viewing the donators as their customers and the most important people to please rather than the people they claim to help.
First is the idea, mostly held by people at places like Dartmouth, that because these problems exist it must mean that nobody is trying to solve them. In reality, plenty of people are trying to solve them, its just difficult. This leads people to start their own charities that end up competing with each other for donations and thus it is difficult to develop the economies of scale that makes this stuff efficient.
The article mostly talks about the lack of market research. Its not difficult to ask someone 'What do you need' or 'Why don't you have running water' or 'Do you need your house to double as a workshop' and this would have helped guide the designs. A simple walk through and critical thinking would have shown designers that many people lived in apartments, and perhaps a 3000 dollar apartment building would get more use.
The article brings up putting local laborers out of business. I'm not sure I buy this argument against charity. The authors had spent previous paragraphs explaining the need for customization. The builders would not automatically be out of work if people bought prefab houses.
I guess in conclusion I think a lot of people who go into charity have the 'saving the world' attitude that makes them arrogant. This leads to people trying the same thing over and over again, and while competition is great in a market economy, when non-profits are competing for donations it leads to the non-profits viewing the donators as their customers and the most important people to please rather than the people they claim to help.
Yes, many plans to do charity work are half-baked. But I'm actually pretty pleased with this story since they're publishing their failures rather than sweeping it under the rug.
Market incentives aren't really there to reward charities for being really effective; most charities raise money by telling a good story. Few people dig deeper because digging deeper is hard.
As far as I know, http://givewell.org/ is the best thing out there when it comes to evaluating charities. Also, I highly recommend reading Poor Economics, a book that just came out that describes some more solid research using randomized trials.
Market incentives aren't really there to reward charities for being really effective; most charities raise money by telling a good story. Few people dig deeper because digging deeper is hard.
As far as I know, http://givewell.org/ is the best thing out there when it comes to evaluating charities. Also, I highly recommend reading Poor Economics, a book that just came out that describes some more solid research using randomized trials.
You might also appreciate http://charitynavigator.org/
Particularly, the CEO pay reports. Why should I donate money to pay someone richer than me?
Lead by example, charity CEO.
Lead by example, charity CEO.
There's an excellent This American Life programme that addresses these kinds of issues in post-earthquake Haiti: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/408/i...
The article mentions that land is scarce. It is often the case that the high cost item is not the obvious one, but the scarce one. California had very high housing costs, not so much because construction costs were high, but because land costs were. I would surmise that, in the case the article mentioned, a $300 house would not help much, because the cost of acquiring the land to put it on is so much higher.
My town is a bizarre case of scarcity pricing. Just before the crash, larger houses were going for well over a million and more modest houses were over $500K. Land was cheap. A lot could be had for $15K-$30K. The scarce item was water hookup. A Chevron station with leaking tanks had contaminated the water source and there has been a decade long moratorium on new hookups. To build a new house you needed a cheap lot and a $350,000 water meter. One man had actually accumulated 15 of them.
My town is a bizarre case of scarcity pricing. Just before the crash, larger houses were going for well over a million and more modest houses were over $500K. Land was cheap. A lot could be had for $15K-$30K. The scarce item was water hookup. A Chevron station with leaking tanks had contaminated the water source and there has been a decade long moratorium on new hookups. To build a new house you needed a cheap lot and a $350,000 water meter. One man had actually accumulated 15 of them.
I looked into building a house in my town. Estimates for getting a permit were 2 years and $50k-$100k in costs. I bought a condo.
Point Reyes?
TL;DR - Shack designers who submitted for the competition failed at "customer development". They didn't ask how the customers use cheap dwellings now (store tools, build stuff, & upgrade).
Those who like their current homes will stay in them. Those who think the 300$ house is a good idea will use them.
Whats the problem? name any product and I can find an argument on the side of nobody choosing to use it.
I, for one, have a use for a 300$ house. I have a piece of land on which I would love to be able to place a few smaller cabins. Currently doing so would run me around 15-50k per building.
Whats the problem? name any product and I can find an argument on the side of nobody choosing to use it.
I, for one, have a use for a 300$ house. I have a piece of land on which I would love to be able to place a few smaller cabins. Currently doing so would run me around 15-50k per building.
I understood from the article that the concern is that the house will be purchased by local government and forced on the poor.
How do you figure 15-50k? You can build what they are talking about for less than $1000.
This is a difficult and really deep problem with no clear answers. Sure the local population are doing their best "building a future for themselves", but they are also driven to build structures that are totally unsafe in a serious earthquake. This is the main difference between one country's 7.0 quake killing tens or hundreds, yet another country's 7.0 (or even 6.0) killing tens or hundreds of thousands.
The solution is definitely not just marching in and offering a new cheap design for a single family house. The solution has to include an answer to the question: how do you get the local government to see the real equation. (economic cost of reduced economic output from early death from early mortality) MUCH GREATER THAN (cost of making sure everyone has a safe and secure home).
The solution is definitely not just marching in and offering a new cheap design for a single family house. The solution has to include an answer to the question: how do you get the local government to see the real equation. (economic cost of reduced economic output from early death from early mortality) MUCH GREATER THAN (cost of making sure everyone has a safe and secure home).
Often times customers use your product in a way you didn't intend. A $300 house may have value, just maybe not the way the builders envision it.
Sure! I'd buy a $300 house and use it as a garden shed.
...go to Home Depot and buy one then? They make nice, even potentially livable drop-in outbuildings.
No solar panel for tablet computer charging, but really now.
No solar panel for tablet computer charging, but really now.
The nice ones that, if insulated and wired for electricity, would be livable are at least $3K.
Not for $300 they don't...
Well, not a luxurious one, but:
http://www.homedepot.com/Storage-Organization-Sheds-Garages-...
Good article about always the same problem in development politics.
Simple ground rule: If it does not create business for local companies, its usually not a good idea in the long run.
Simple ground rule: If it does not create business for local companies, its usually not a good idea in the long run.
That's for me the most telling sentence of the article. As someone familiar with the realities of developing countries, I am frankly tired of seeing those kind of "feel-good" type of projects that helps only the ego of those who are "giving".
What is fundamentally missing in those kinds of projects is the SACRIFICE aspect of it. The willingness to get out of your bubble, put your career (or life) on the line and go live the harsh reality of those who you (supposedly) want to help.
* Lack of understanding: Poverty is a deep, complex social, historic and economical problem, and very often the solution is not technical at all (example: OLPC, and the project mentioned in the article). Unfortunately people think they can learn remotely, or with a simple two-week slum tour (more like a vacation).
* Lack of commitment (again connected to sacrifice): "Good-heart" people come, work on the "world-changing" thing for 3 months, get some international awards and then leave. As a result, the community is left feeling manipulated and tired, and that ruins for any other serious projects in the future.
* Lack of respect: Often people approach these projects from a stance of privilege (like Dr. Cornel West likes to say). What I mean by that is that they may demonstrate humbleness with their choice of words, but the general attitude is actually very elitist. Something like: "oh, poor them, they don't know any better". Getting the community buy-in is VERY HARD, and it involves you first showing that you are 100% committed to them (i. e.: sacrifice).
Interestingly, the willingness to sacrifice is also true for start-ups.