I’m not a fan of this article, mostly because Evan Christenson contemplates the darker side of charities working in underdeveloped countries without actually exploring them beyond criticizing WBR. It’s, likely unintentional, FUD propaganda.

It should not be a shock to find out that charities have overhead and many of them have unfortunate side effects. For example, Evan brings up Doctors Without Borders as a charity with lower overhead and a leader less compensated. That’s true, but did you also know they sell your personal information when you donate to them? That’s part of how they lower their costs. Also they provide doctor services for free. What does that do to the doctors who are there trying to make a meager living? DWB is undermining what little medical infrastructure the country has.

Is that a bad thing? Is it a good thing? That depends on you, the donor’s, perspective. Selling my data to provide more doctor is fine with me. Same with undermining the countries’ medical market because it’s a temporary thing and usually in a crisis where not providing help is definitively worse.

I’ll continue donating to WBR because their expense ratio is acceptable, even good, for physical good imports given the shipping overhead (aka bribes) in Africa. Admim is ~15% and fundraising is ~23%. Everything else goes into the bicycle and into families with kids who cannot afford one. That’s a lower margin than buying just about any good from your local shops, and it’s lower than many other charities working in Africa!