Methods of giving to charity have become a topic sparking controversy in several countries in recent decades. While some people choose to provide needy people with direct help, others argue that donating to national and multinational charities is more effective approach. In this essay, both views will be discussed thoroughly before my view is presented.
People who advocate indirect donation usually cite two major reasons for their viewpoint. One of the most important reasons is that indirect donation can address widespread issues on a massive scale. In fact, national and international organisations possess the infrastructure and resources to tackle global problems such as poverty, disease and natural disasters. Additionally, these established institutions often have expertise in managing funds effectively and proposing long-term solutions. For instance, organisations like Red Cross and UNICEF, who can offer aids across multiple countries, potentially help millions of people.
From my point of view, nonetheless, I am inclined to think direct aid is more effective in several ways. In terms of the transparency of the donated sum, donors can have more control over how funds are used. For example, when someone volunteers directly in highland areas, they could see how their right to contribute was used and handed to the recipient to make sure their purpose of donation. Also, regarding the personal connection between the donor and the beneficiary direct donation can foster a closer relationship between donors and recipients. Consequently, direct contact with recipients could help philanthropists understand their actual situations, which may create a deep sense of empathy and bridge the gap between both sides.
In conclusion, while indirect donation is promoted due to its large-scale impact and effective management, I tend to be in favour of direct doantion because of its control over funds and personal connection.