In Between The Lines: Grassroots vs. Global —Where Should You Spend Your Time and Money?
When I originally planned on writing this piece, I assumed that, by now, I would have a clearer answer to the question: are grassroots efforts or global efforts to eradicate poverty more effective? This question, within an article series that covered topics like capitalism, corruption, and income inequality, has surprisingly been the hardest to answer.
At the moment, I am somewhere in between. I won’t promise an answer to the grassroots vs. global debate, but I can promise an honest reflection. My hope is by the time you finish reading you can come to your own conclusions about taking action regarding social issues and allow the knowledge to influence how you engage in your community and beyond.
The Circle(s) of Life
Throughout Uplift and Empower, I wrote about the importance of community development. I emphasized that it’s important to start from home rather than overwhelming yourself with anger and frustration about poverty (or any major issue) on a global scale. As I researched, read books, and watched interviews about poverty and poverty alleviation, I realized a simple truth: it’s much easier to complain than it is to act.
Finding criticism about government policies, global injustice, and income inequality was a lot easier than finding information about what ideas and solutions for poverty alleviation were working.
The experience reminded me of the book, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People by Stephen R. Covey. One of the most memorable ideas from the book for me was his breakdown of our circles of control, influence, and concern. I have included a graphic below to explain the idea in more detail.
There are three core circles where we can concentrate our focus, attention, and energy:
Our circle of concern involves broad issues and topics about our life, work, and the world that we may express worry or concern about.
Our circle of influence focuses specifically on issues and topics that we can impact.
Our circle of control includes solely issues and concerns that we can do something about.
These circles help to explain why there is value in individuals working within our circles of control and influence first, then expanding over time. Big, global issues like extreme poverty are, for most people, in our circles of concern. However, reducing income inequality in our hometowns, raising awareness about poverty alleviation in our schools or community organizations, and donating to local charities are all within our circle of control.
On Grassroots Action
As an example, consider the idea of universal basic income. Implementing a universal basic income in the United States is, for the average American citizen, considered a “circle of concern” issue. However, for local, state, and national politicians, it is part of their “circle of control.” Michael Tubbs, former mayor of Stockton, California, is a great example of this shift. Tubbs was born and raised in Stockton, California. He overcame the struggles of a rough childhood to become the city’s first Black mayor and, at 26, one of the youngest mayors in the US.
Tubbs’s progressive ideas, like spearheading a Universal Basic Income experiment called the Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration (SEED) in 2019, catapulted him to national fame. He took his interest in a “circle of concern” issue and turned it into a “circle of control” issue through his work as a mayor.
A recent NPR article about the experiment, which summarized its key findings, shared that SEED was largely a success. Randomly selected Stockton residents who received $500 per month for two years saw a measurable improvement in their “job prospects, financial stability and overall well-being.” If you’d like to learn more, I encourage you to read the white paper on the SEED’s website with additional details about how participants spent the money, how the income reduced their anxiety and enhanced their well-being, how the reduction in financial scarcity increased their self-determination, and more.
Though Tubbs recently lost his re-election campaign for mayor, he has been very busy since. Beyond his role as an IOP Fellow at Harvard University, he has continued his work to support universal basic income by establishing Mayors for Guaranteed Income (MGI). MGI is a coalition of over 40 mayors across the U.S. dedicated to advocating for guaranteed income and establishing projects in their cities similar to Tubbs. The results of the studies in Stockton have proved the “welfare queen” stereotype wrong and shown that many of the guaranteed income recipients are “working more and earning more” than they did before the experiment.
In Uplift and Empower, I wrote about how community-focused policies would be challenging to implement at a national or global scale because the solutions created would be—or rather should be—too specific to be applied at a broad scale without major adjustments. How can these ultra-precise plans be created? Through the intervention of passionate community leaders like Michael Tubbs. As I wrote in Uplift and Empower, “Working closely with recipients and understanding the needs of others requires a level of trust, credibility, and closeness that community leaders are best positioned to develop. Community leaders can serve as mentors, communicators, and friends who represent the values and priorities most important to the populations they support. At this level of giving, customizing aid to the specific needs of individuals becomes a natural byproduct of the types of relationships formed.” (P. 121)
The work toward eradicating extreme poverty globally starts with recognizing and acting to combat the impacts of poverty locally first. Maybe you can’t influence how decisions are made at a national or global level, but you can influence your city council or your local businesses or your local charities or your church or your social media connections and make an impact there.
As I mentioned at the beginning of this section, complaining is much easier than acting. When you make the effort to improve the quality of your community, it may even help you to empathize with the leaders in power at broader levels.
Going Global
Though I am passionate about the power of community engagement, the efforts of global, influential organizations to eradicate extreme poverty cannot be ignored. The heart of the Money Plus Method—the poverty alleviation framework I share in Uplift and Empower—is a recognition that you need money to make a large impact and provide the resources that individuals need to improve their lives.
Eradicating extreme poverty will require an equal balance of tangible and intangible goods. Food, shelter, clothing—the tangible goods that keep life going—cost money. Building self-confidence, finding a support network, increasing ambition—the intangible goods that improve mental health and lead to a hopeful outlook regarding the future—are free.
Large, well-established organizations with expansive networks and funding can more easily access the right resources to make an impact on a global scale. The size and scope of their work allow them to operate within the “circle of concern.” Take, for example, the confederation of 20 independent charities focused on alleviating poverty, Oxfam. Between 2018 - 2019 alone, Oxfam worked directly with over 19 million people through their programs to help eradicate poverty and spent US$ 1.2 billion. Every year they work with thousands of partner organizations around the world. Their 75+ years of experience help them to both expand their reach and work on initiatives that are focused on long-term sustainability in communities. Their projects cover a broad range: conflicts and disasters, extreme inequality and essential services, food, climate and natural resources, gender justice and women’s rights, and water and sanitation.
Large organizations, like Oxfam, are not without their controversies, misconduct abroad, and doubts regarding their impact; but, ultimately, well-recognized names attract generous donations. Those large pools of funds drive the kind of impact that pushes the number of people living in extreme poverty down closer to zero at the scale of hundreds of thousands per year, rather than one community at a time.
While the donations of everyday individuals are both noble and necessary, raising 1 million dollars from one person or family or foundation can at times be much faster than reaching out to, say, 200,000 people to donate five dollars each. A big name can make an even bigger impact—with more staff, more resources, more funding, and a broader reach.
Conclusion
As I wrote at the beginning of this article, I can’t promise a clear answer to this debate. Perhaps, the answer is that there is no debate and that both sides to poverty eradication work are equally necessary. We need the grassroots efforts as much as we need the global efforts. Grassroots work allows communities in need to stay at the center, with fewer distractions. On the other hand, global work enables core social problems, like extreme poverty, to remain top of mind for government leaders, influential foundations, and other major sources of power and influence. Perhaps, to you, there is no debate and the answer is clear.
In my personal life, I started at the grassroots level. During the pre-sale campaign for Uplift and Empower, I announced a scholarship fund to support high school seniors in my hometown. With a combination of book royalties and generous donations from my support network, we raised over 1,000 dollars to support two graduating seniors. Rather than operating alone, I collaborated with the Public Education Foundation of Marion County to launch the fund. Now, the foundation is managing the fund with the help of its local, expert staff.
Would I like this scholarship fund to grow and expand into a global effort to support education? Absolutely. Do I have the money, team, or time to do that? Not yet.
I used my opportunities and resources to make an impact at a scale that I could successfully implement. What that looks like for you could be completely different and that’s what makes social engagement unique.
In Uplift and Empower, I wrote about the relationship between the criticisms of “the system” and our influence, no matter how small, to change things:
“We can improve the quality of life for Robins once and for all. Right now, we are close, but not quite there. The critical ideas are available, but individuals and organizations are repeating the same harmful cycles of sympathetic giving in the interim while simultaneously complaining about an “unchanging system.” Yet, we are part of the system and are complicit in maintaining its flaws. Who is stopping us from progressing in this area other than ourselves?” (P. 266)
Again, it’s much easier to complain than it is to act. You can decide to tackle social issues that matter to you at a local level, global level, or somewhere in between. Just remember that ideas and conversations are great, but taking action is the key to changing lives.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
This article series, In Between The Lines, is an exploration of some of the topics and ideas I didn’t cover in my first book, Uplift and Empower: A Guide To Understanding Extreme Poverty and Poverty Alleviation. Sign up for the Uplift and Empower newsletter to get new articles sent straight to your email inbox once a month.
Uplift and Empower was published on August 15, here is the link to buy it: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1641379243/! (The book is also available for sale at BN.com, Kobo, Walmart, and other distributors worldwide. Check UpliftandEmpower.com for more options.)
If you want to connect, you can reach me via email at danielle.tarigha@gmail.com or connect with me on social media:
Instagram (@daniellehawatarigha) https://www.instagram.com/daniellehawatarigha/
Facebook (Uplift and Empower) fb.me/daniellehawatarigha
Twitter (@danielle_hawa) https://twitter.com/danielle_hawa
