Two Models for Helping the Poor

Let's say for a moment that you'd like to help "empower" some poor people to improve their lives.

One model you investigate is this: Get a modest amount of money and lend small amounts at a time to people who live in very poor countries where the banks won't lend them anything and the only available credit comes at 500-600 percent interest rates. You let people pay these loans at (comparatively) low interest rates, but you make them pay you back even if they lose the money or there's a natural disaster, because that keeps the pool of impoverished but determined people a "good risk," as far as lending goes. These people (most of them women) become leaders in their communities because part of the conditions of the loan are that they take care of their families and houses, grow as much of their own food as possible, and work with other loan recipients to make their communities stronger and more prosperous.

Another model you investigate is this: Get a lot of poor people together and pick a local target for them to go up against. Once you've picked the target, identify a person they can attack as a representative of that target. Show them how to attack this person through phone calls, letter-writing campaigns, press conferences, protests, and other public means, as well as how to meet with local officials to put pressure on them to change their ways. Once they have achieved a victory against their first opponent, encourage the group to pick a bigger, more powerful target to attack next. These people become leaders in their communities because of what they accomplish in attacking anyone who gets in their way.

The first model is that of microcredit, developed by Muhammad Yunus (winner of the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize) and founder of Bangladesh's Grameen Bank.

The second is the organizing strategy used by the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN).

Both models include intensive community participation and group organization. Both have severe critics. Both operate in the real world, which is always messier and more complicated than the two simple explanations above. Neither is run by Catholics, or even (necessarily) Christians. Grameen Bank is run by Muslims; ACORN is a secular organization. Both seem to be practical way to get things done.

So which is better? That depends on your aim. And as Archbishop Chaput writes in the current issue of First Things, Catholics need to keep Christ in mind when performing or supporting any works of charity. We don't help others just to get things done, we help others to show Christ's love in the world. For that, some methods are better than others, and some won't do at all.