Indeed, we shall not do anything. We shall let them doing it. I am not claiming to have that idea, it simply comes from Angus Deaton, Economy Nobel prize 2015. In his recent book « The great Escape », in the chapter 7 (“How to help those left behind”) he points out the deep error underlying this sentence. Citation: “We often have such a poor understanding of what they need, and how their society is organised, that our clumsy attempts to help on our terms do more harm than good. […] And when we fail, we continue, because our interests are now at stake – it is our aid industry, staffed largely by our professionals, and generating kudos and votes for our politicians – and because, after all, we must do something.” Continue reading “Why shall we do something?”
First of all, collaborative approaches are based on relationships. Thus, they are reinforcing populations resilience. They are also based on local initiatives to fulfill unmatched need and enable disruptive answers. Furthermore, they do not necessarily need huge financing, since they are based on recycling of funds (inside communities), in opposition with traditional assistance approaches. They even allow revenue generation, although they do not guarantee fair share of revenues. Thus, collaborative approaches are sustainable, opened toward change of practices, in a very different way of emergency responses. Finally, they do not stigmatise affected populations, since they are directly part of the process, as contributor (see for example http://singa.fr).
NB: This section is inspired by Flore Berlingen paper in revue Humanitaire n°41, pp. 46 à 50, Défense et illustration de l’économie collaborative