A dilemma: do celebrities have the power to save the world?

What is this video suggesting? That our help is needed to save these poor people in poverty stricken areas? That we should follow the charitable example of these celebrities? This video is one of the hundreds made to emotionally evoke watchers to pledge support to the cause. But what is the cause?

Recently in the past two decades the celebrity culture has become more transnational and globalised which has created an attitude of cosmopolitan caring. (Littler, J. 2008) It has now become incredibly fashionable for celebrities to ‘do good’ and be seen as charitable. For many people, celebrities represent ‘us’ and bridge the seemingly large gap between us and them, rich and poor by providing emotional access to scenes of horror around the world. (Littler, J. 2008) The participation and use of celebrities in development work has only recently been academically critiqued and there is widespread and popular criticism amongst many people working in development both in ‘developed’ and ‘developing’ nations.

Undeniably, however the world that we live in today is one where celebrities wield huge amounts of power and can influence many forms of society which is why the issue of celebrities and development is so complex, due to their influence in politics, culture and the world. As Bob Geldof said the ‘cult of celebrity [is] now a currency, you could spend that currency’. It is recognised that celebrities and development are inextricable linked and one of the advantages of having a celebrity face to a campaign is the opportunities for media and publicity. Dan Brockington believes that a well-known celebrity can bring endorsements to the campaign and make a campaign or issue glamorous to the general public. As Geldof describes, celebrities have become marketable icons that can sell their image to create engagement in politically sensitive subjects such as refugees and environmentalism. (Littler, J. 2008) This creates a new audience for charities that they previously been would have been out-of-touch with. Celebrities have the potential to change public discourse and focus or refresh the images of long running campaigns to gain more public awareness and support.

There are issues with what messages celebrities portray to the media of the campaigns they are supporting. The most common message of celebrities is to encourage the public to donate money which is a form of aid. Of course, aid is not necessarily a bad thing but these large sums of money generated by the public do not necessarily help to instigate development. One of the most famous examples of celebrity power used to create world-wide awareness and raise money for a cause was Live Aid in 1985 however the $1 billion raised saved thousands of lives, many argue but did very little for the long term establishment of development in Ethiopia. Huge criticisms were cast on the well-intentioned causes as most of the food provided went to the military regime, so unintentionally supporting the regime that was killing thousands of people.

Another issue with celebrity advocacy is the images of vulnerable people or areas in the world. The images portrayed by Live Aid were ones of Africa as one identity that should be pitied. The images of starving children damage the whole continent and ignore the positive changes that being done across the continent. Critics argue that it is very easy for the role of a celebrity in a campaign to over simplify the complexities of the issues and create the impression that charities only have one line of focus. This simplification of the issues that celebrities take part in is shown as the media often only focuses on development when there have been times of crisis or emergencies and therefore stories only provide narrow and specific information. (Richey, L and Ponte, S. 2011) This can therefore undermine the work of the grass-root organisation or NGO that is working in the area which means that many organisations lament working with celebrities as they cause more harm than good, even with the publicity and added public awareness.

Can celebrities be involved in development? Yes I believe they can. However, there needs to an understanding from both parties the organisation and the celebrity of their role in order to avoid hindering the development work in place. The added awareness of world issues is important but it is vital less fashionable issues are also shown so effective development can take place.

References
Littler, Jo ‘I feel your pain: Celebrity do-gooding, cosmopolitan caring and the globalised soul’, Social Semiotics, 2008 18(2): 237-251
Richey, Lisa Ann and Stefano Ponte (2008) ‘Better (Red)TM than Dead? Celebrities, consumption and international aid’, Third World Quarterly, 29:4, 711-729.

A dilemma: does aid really create or help development?

What is aid? According to the Oxford Dictionaries, it is ‘help, typically of a practical nature’ or historically ‘a grant of subsidy or tax’ given to an established institution such as a government. These simple definitions do not even begin to encapsulate the extremely complicated matter that aid has now become. It is now one of the few development issues that has caught public attention and therefore has become a hotly contested matter. Though it could be argued that it is not the public’s concern for the development work itself that is the issue but the cost of aid on the individual tax payer. Due to the recent recession there is more public scrutiny on government spending and the £7.5 billion spent each year by DFID, outlined by Tran, is a cause of concern for many. Understandably so.

Traditionally, the UK has always stood on a moral international pedestal due to its high proportion of GDI spent on foreign aid. Even in the fragile economic climate of this year, PM David Cameron has reaffirmed Britain’s pledge to commit 0.7% of GNI to overseas aid, contrary to increasing public and political pressure to reduce the funds. This agreement is part of the coalition consensus and also an agreement between DFID and the Conservative Policy Green Paper, which Vernon suggests is an act for Britain to appear as the leader of the international aid community. However there are many critics that argue against unilateral aid as recipient governments can become dependent on the aid or ‘addicted’ and seek no alternatives as there is no finite end to the aid.

One very prominent critic of unilateral is Dambisa Moya who argues in the past 60 years that Africa has been receiving aid, it has only seen regression in development. Before aid was given 10% of Africans were living off $1 a day and now 70% of people living in Africa are below the poverty line. Arguably, this could be due to other factors such as political instability and regional violence that takes place across many countries within Africa: however the links between aid and regression are inextricable. African governments view aid as a permanent source of income, and by having no end to the agreement donor countries are encouraging no alternative to be made. Even the aid that is being given is undermined by the unstable and corrupt governments that govern some countries, such as Somalia and Sudan. The billions of pounds paid only enrich and maintain the powerful elites of the country. Moya argues passionately that aid is not the way forward and is not necessary for development, but rather it is the combination of trade, foreign investment, micro-finance and the use of markets that creates economic growth which then is a catalyst for development. It has worked in China, India, South Africa and Botswana so the use of long term, sustainable strategies should be universal, with the considerations of different histories, cultures, economies and politics.

But is it possible to develop without the influence of dependent aid? Yes, when it is carried out appropriately and with long term solutions in mind. In Nicaragua, since the collapse of the Somoza regime in 1979, the government has carried out a number of welfare changes that have developed more successfully than when they were provided by aid. They have reduced adult illiteracy by 40%, agricultural productions are 8% higher, vaccinations have doubled and infant mortality has dropped. (Hancock, G. 1989)

This example exemplifies that official aid is not necessary for development, if there is the infrastructure and state to support development in order to keep the prospects long term and sustainable. It is incredibly important to assess the potential impacts of aid in the long term and its effects could be regressive instead of progressive.

References

Hancock, G. 1989. ‘Lords of Poverty: The Power, Prestige and Corruption of International Aid Business’. New York:The Atlantic Monthly Press