Author: MARGARET PROBST – Mar 14, 2025
Topic: Localization and Non-Profits
Committee: Government and Law
Committee Chair: ANDREW VANDERKOLK
MADISON, WI – The cash register flashes, “Round up to the nearest dollar for charity?” and you feel as though you’ve made a tangible effort in reducing world hunger, poverty, education inequality, or whatever charity they advertised. News flash, your spare change went to fund an NGO executive’s salary. NGOs are the epitome of performative aid – promising hope to communities while actually causing harm.
We exist in a “feel-good” society with a general desire to pursue change. As individuals in this enormous world, we look toward large Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), e.g., Goodwill, to take our generosity and turn it into results. However, NGOs exist with a halo effect; they are glorified by society, allowing them to be more performative. Regardless of actual outcomes, marketing teams over-promote their impact in the humanitarian aid industry. Marketing campaigns are why most people don’t understand the implications of the humanitarian aid crisis we are in. To solve this crisis, we need localization, the idea that resources should be allocated to local agencies that have the capability to create tailored solutions.
In theory, localization is an efficient and effective process for global developmental and humanitarian aid initiatives. In reality, capitalism fundamentally undermines localization efforts. Capitalism depends on economic disparities that fuel profit margins; it systematically resists global development in favor of economies of scale. This explains why Walmart succeeds while Mom-and-Pop shops fail (Cook-Lundgren). Despite well-intentioned global initiatives to improve the humanitarian aid process, capitalism’s profit-driven nature often perpetuates inequality and ultimately prevents localization from taking root in communities seeking growth.
World leaders are no strangers to the potential that localization holds. In Istanbul in 2016, The Grand Bargain was launched “to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of humanitarian action” by reallocating funding from large-scale players to local agencies, supported by 51 commitments ranging from cash assistance to supporting local responders. This followed two other major initiatives: the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Like many plans introduced by NGOs, MDGs and SDGs were too ambitious and optimistic to achieve tangible results (Cook-Lundgren). The Grand Bargain is more realistic and achievable and has actually produced visible results. It blends “incremental and individual” actions with “anticipatory” actions. They aren’t trying to solve poverty in one step; rather, they use a model built on meeting people where they are today. However, despite their more dynamic approach, their results are not at breakthrough levels.
Historically, we have seen well-intentioned programs aimed at combating global poverty and increasing equity; however, these efforts are often spearheaded by technical experts who lack deep understanding of the issues—resulting instead in exacerbated problems. A famous example is the United States’ donation of rice to Haiti following the Caribbean Basin Initiative, a program implemented by former President Ronald Reagan in 1984 offering food aid after Hurricane Allen (1980) and severe flooding during the mid-1980s (Mullin). US officials believed free rice was an inexpensive and efficient way to combat food insufficiency. Citizens were pleased with free food; farmers who largely depended on domestic rice sales were not as pleased. This exemplifies giving without intention. A better approach would have been investing in local rice farmers. Such giving helps immediately but also benefits future economic growth. The United States advertised this program as a great success; US citizens felt pride in their humanitarian aid despite its negative effects. This same scenario continues worldwide: white technical experts enter communities with “on-paper” solutions that locals must integrate, even when these solutions often hinder communities instead (Bruce-Raeburn).
Technical experts often target the poor rather than addressing forces creating their poverty (Kadir). Localization offers communities opportunities to target foundational problems instead. However, true problems in developing countries are fundamentally political, not technical (Kadir). Consequently, localization must occur alongside addressing systemic issues related to capitalism fueled by current economic disparities. Thus, it’s simple, dissolve capitalism so localization can follow? Right—simple? From an economic perspective, it’s not quite black-and-white. It’s easy to see advantages economic inequality offers large corporations: exploitation of inexpensive labor and strategic geographic placement allowing avoidance of trade and labor laws (CLASP). Corporations must focus on the triple bottom line and prioritize long-term welfare over immediate profit for localization efforts to succeed.
Once ready for integration, various questions arise, primarily centered around defining poverty itself, as without answering this question clearly, ending poverty remains impossible. No single metric perfectly describes poverty or provides a standardized method for comparison across countries. Furthermore, poverty’s inherent political conception is a westernized model rooted in neocolonialism and neoliberalism (Fischer). Returning briefly to Haiti’s example: was US involvement purely moral? Or did neoliberalism play a part in maintaining economic power? As previously stated, poverty is inherently political. Throughout reformation efforts to push towards localization, the defining poverty conversations will be of great importance. They will need to define two qualifying dimensions – how is poverty defined? At what point is a country sufficient in economic development to reduce foreign aid benefits? Without answering these questions clearly, ending poverty remains impossible.
Today people define poverty not based on economic standing but visually, supported by various vehicles perpetuating stereotypes. Poverty is not only classist but racialized and gendered as well. One MDG goal was “promoting gender equality and empowering women” (WHO). At first glance – a great idea, upon deeper reflection – who defines empowerment? Who measures success? While intentions are good, execution fails because it doesn’t address systemic issues within communities themselves. Utilizing localization allows communities understanding internal issues to create tailored solutions leading toward greater goals – for example: female empowerment.
Furthermore, when Western countries enter foreign-aid contexts they crowd out local government and organizational efforts, undermining genuine local leadership potential and leaving behind dependency rather than sustainable growth (Northwestern).
As we push toward localization we’re faced with a dilemma: allow Western countries continued control or leave implementation solely up to developing nations? Western countries would perpetuate neoliberalism replicating current systemic failures; conversely, leaving implementation solely up to impoverished countries could deepen inequalities or internal corruption due to lack of resources or governance experience.
A balance, a board of nations perhaps, is ideal; however even such boards must first confront deep-rooted systemic issues for true localization success.
This transformation requires fundamental cultural shifts but through individual actions starting locally.
NGOs remain persistent in offering the “feel good” opportunities to round up at the grocery store or donate online. However, instead of participating in these corporate performances, we must redirect our efforts towards local agencies. Swap rounding up at the grocery store for donating supplies to a local school or investing in local development projects. On a global scale, these individual efforts will add up and lay a foundation for localization to flourish. The path to more equitable growth is not through Western initiatives in foreign aid but through empowering local agencies and dismantling systemic issues that have long hindered meaningful change.