Beneficence, Street Begging, and Diverted Giving Schemes

PRQXXX10.1177/1065912918768031Political Research QuarterlyPérez-Muñoz 768031research-article2018 Article Political Research Quarterly 2018, Vol. 71(4) 923 –935 Beneficence, Street Begging, and © 2018 University of Utah Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions Diverted Giving Schemes DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912918768031 10.1177/1065912918768031 journals.sagepub.com/home/prq Cristian Pérez-Muñoz1 Abstract In recent years, some cities and localities in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and elsewhere have adopted or intend to adopt one potential solution to the difficulties inherent in addressing the needs of street beggars: diverted giving schemes (DGSs). A DGS is an institutional response designed to motivate people to donate money in charity boxes or donation meters rather than directly to street beggars. Their advocates believe that DGSs are both more efficient and more ethically permissible than direct giving to individual beggars. This article asks whether and how a DGS can be justified. It offers a normative evaluation of the main idea behind this policy, namely, that anonymous and spontaneous donations to charity boxes are in themselves an adequate policy instrument to address the problem of street begging. Ultimately, the paper argues against this idea and develops the case that DGSs can potentially compromise our ability to act on our moral duties toward truly needy beggars. Moreover, it explains why and under which circumstances this kind of program can potentially and seriously interfere with the freedom and opportunities of individuals in the begging population. Keywords street begging, diverted giving schemes, beneficence Introduction ability to act on our moral duties toward truly needy beggars. Moreover, it explains why and under which circum- In recent years, some cities and localities in the United stances this kind of program can potentially and seriously States, Canada, the United Kingdom and elsewhere have interfere with the freedom and opportunities of individu- adopted or intend to adopt one potential solution to the als in the begging population. As my analysis is mainly difficulties inherent in addressing the needs of street beg- normative in content, this paper does not pretend to offer gars: diverted giving schemes (DGSs). A DGS is an insti- a systematic and exhaustive analysis of current DGSs that tutional response designed to motivate people to donate are currently being debated and occasionally put into money in charity boxes or donation meters rather than practice around the world. Instead, its purpose is only to directly to street beggars (Hermer 1999; Johnsen and draw some insights from actual policies to illustrate the Fitzpatrick 2008; Lynch 2005; Scott 2003). Their advo- normative implications of this approach. cates believe that DGSs are not only more efficient and One question that arises is why we should analyze more ethically permissible than direct giving to individ- DGSs as a unique type of public policy. The first reason ual beggars, but also that DGSs constitute an adequate is that, while we know very little about this type of pro- institutional answer to street begging. Although surpris- gram implemented in several cities across the United ingly very little empirical and theoretical research has States and the United Kingdom, DGSs may have an studied DGSs, this type of institutional response to street important impact on the lives of many poor and marginal- begging has gained noteworthy political and public atten- ized people. Second, DGS programs are compatible with tion over the last few years. what has been described by others as illiberal (e.g., This article asks whether and how a DGS can be justified. It offers a normative evaluation of the main idea 1Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile behind this policy, namely, that anonymous and spontaneous donations to charity boxes are in themselves an Corresponding Author: adequate policy instrument to address street begging. Cristian Pérez-Muñoz, Institute of Political Science, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Av. Vicuña Mackenna 4860, Macul, Ultimately, the paper argues against this idea and devel- Santiago, 8320000, Chile. ops the case that DGSs can potentially compromise our Email: [email protected] 924 Political Research Quarterly 71(4) Waldron 1993) and “revanchist” policies (Smith, 2002). to respect and improve the efficiency and efficacy of vol- That is, a set of policies designed to regulate and control untary individual donations. This concern is completely homeless and street beggars’ behavior. Nevertheless, as I disregarded when we adopt a redistributive policy that will explain later on, DGSs present some particularities enforces contributions through the tax system. DGS that make them an interesting case of policy targeted at advocates could argue that a redistributive policy financed street beggars. by taxes neither recognizes the moral relevance of indi- This paper is organized as follows. The section vidual choice nor upholds the voluntary nature of dona- “Begging and Ad Hoc Individual Beneficence” describes tions. The analytical exercise proposed in this article the challenges of one-on-one beneficence at the street allows us to explain why voluntary individual donations level and explains why street begging requires an institu- given directly to street beggars can be preferable to DGS tional solution. The section “Justifications of DGSs” programs. summarizes the key characteristics of DGSs and reviews the principal arguments in their favor. The section Begging and Ad Hoc Individual “Normative Challenges to DGSs” presents four criteria Beneficence testing the permissibility of a DGS: (1) it uses permissible solicitation strategies to collect revenue sufficient to Begging is a phenomenon that highly varies from one cover the operational costs of assisting beggars, (2) it context to another. Therefore, it is not the same to com- serves as a transparent and accountable mechanism of pare begging practices that are carried out mainly to pro- solicitation and assistance, (3) it is not combined with vide funds to educate children (such as described by zero-tolerance or antibegging ordinances, and (4) under Swanson 2010 for the case of Ecuador), to begging prac- certain circumstances, it satisfies the demands of justice. tices carried out to simply survive. Since the goal of this The section “Discussion” is devoted to concluding paper is to normatively evaluate DGS programs imple- remarks and discussion. mented mainly in the United States and the United Before beginning, I will make note of a few important Kingdom, I rely on the salient characteristic of begging caveats about my approach. First, it is worth pointing out practices in those particular contexts. For example, dif- that begging is an elusive concept. It is usually associated ferent studies (Lee and Farrell 2003; Tillotson and Lein with homelessness and others activities such as selling 2017) have argued that the lack of social capital (e.g., small items (flowers, gum, etc.). Following Lee and family and friends), the ineligibility for social welfare Farrell (2003, 302), I define begging as “a public request policies, and the disconnection from the formal labor for money, food, or other goods with little or nothing of market explain why some people beg. Similarly, other value given in return to the potential donor.” Thus, a beg- studies suggest that street beggars typically live in gar is “a person who publicly and regularly requests extreme poverty and constitute a highly stigmatized pop- money or goods for personal use in a face-to-face manner ulation (e.g., Dean 1999; Lankenau 1999). Finally, some from unfamiliar others without offering a readily identifi- studies reject the hypothesis that beggars earn large able or valued consumer product or service in exchange amounts of money and report that beggars spend their for items received” (Lankenau 1999, 187–88).1 Second, income on “food, followed by tobacco, then alcohol and/ the goal of this paper is not to justify a moral duty to or illicit drugs” (Bose and Hwang 2002, 478).3 assist street beggars.2 Instead, its aim is to evaluate the From the perspective of an individual donor, it is not a permissibility of DGSs as one instrument of many to simple task to determine what we should do whenever we potentially discharge that duty. Thus, my argument is encounter a beggar asking for money in the street. Even if built on the assumption that we have a moral duty to help one is altruistic and assumes a moral obligation to help needy beggars. others in need, there are three challenges that affect our Finally, this paper attempts to explain why DGSs may capacity to act on that obligation: (1) distinguish needy be even less efficient and ethically permissible than direct beggars from those who engage in subterfuge in the solic- giving to individual beggars. This analytical strategy itation of donations; (2) determine who, among the needy does not derive from the assumption that direct giving is beggars, should receive our help in the first place; and (3) preferable to other forms of institutional responses, such decide whether our direct aid to beggars—rather than as redistributive policies financed through taxation. some other form of indirect aid—is a morally desirable Instead, the comparison between individual giving and way to act on our moral obligations. Let us consider these DGSs is solely intended to contrast two similar responses three challenges in turn. to street begging that share the same key defining ele- First, it is difficult for individual donors to assess and ments: voluntariness and individual choice. Donor volun- distinguish truly needy beggars from fraudulent ones. tariness is a crucial normative concern for DGSs Individual donors can infer that given certain conditions advocates. The policy is defended as a better mechanism (e.g., the nature of the welfare policies in place), more or Pérez-Muñoz 925 less truly needy beggars are asking for money in the directly to a beggar.” It is not necessary to argue that it is street.

Load more