And it is easy to calculate that if all the money lost to corruption and inefficiency was given to the poor who beg, they would not be poor any more. But what would they do? How could they sustain their life without begging? Perhaps welfare agencies or governments could keep on giving them money, so they still have the benefit without the bother of begging.
The question focuses one of the dilemmas for those who want to help the very poor. Certainly there are times of acute need, when there is a disaster for example, when help needs to be given freely and directly. But the difficulty is that acute needs easily become chronic needs, and assistance continues to be given as though there was still an emergency.
The problem is that people can be maintained in dependence. The givers continue to keep control of the gifts and decide how they should be applied. The poor are maintained – in their situation – and as poor. Is there another way to help the very poor? Or to say it another way, what is the help that is most needed?
One way of answering this is to say that it would be better to assist people to become self-providing. Especially heads of families. One of the remarkable developments in the developing world has been the proliferation of micro-enterprise cooperatives. Money is applied to helping people develop small businesses by which they can provide for themselves. It is much harder, but more effective, and more kind I think.
If you want to help the very poor look for groups that are helping the poor to become self-providing.
Dale