The question of whether certain people are givers or takers in their society is a subject for debate. In general, givers are those physically able to work, who are more educated or more endowed with financial resources and natural talents. They can contribute to the society by providing technical expertise for income-generation and by paying taxes for social programmes. In some cases, such as in the United States, those with the ability to spend, especially on brand-name products, houses and cars, contribute to economic growth through consumption. Takers would then be the dependents of these able persons, such as their children, who have yet to enter the workforce. Also, retired persons, who previously worked hard for the society, receive pensions to support their life after work. Nonetheless, this description is a crude generalization. In fact, the social, economic and political contexts of each country would modify these definitions.
Such giver/taker debates take on different forms in Hong Kong, Denmark and Cambodia. As an international financial centre, many of the city’s rich and famous work in investment banking and (financial or business) consulting. On the one hand, these Asian-style Wall Street mongers work diligently to create investment portfolios that generate millions of dollars. These sums in turn go back to society via income and corporate taxes, extravagant consumption or donations to charity. On the other hand, some people wonder if these bankers were only “making the rich richer.” Perhaps, these millions of dollars would not trickle down to the society, especially to those most vulnerable children and elderly. Still others question if the city’s commitment to minimal government intervention hampers the creation of adequate social safety nets for the less privileged. In other words, the giver/taker debate in Hong Kong circles around what specific actions qualify for “contribution.”
When I studied abroad in Copenhagen, Denmark, in Fall 2007, I noticed that this Welfare State treats the giver/taker debate differently. I still remember sitting in a downtown park one afternoon and saw a drunk man wandering on the street. My initial thought was, “He is supported the government… to be drunk!” In my opinion, “too much” social protection may dampen incentive to work as most people would rather eat on welfare. However, the Danes would ardently argue against my assumptions, saying that social security allows unemployed people to take time and retool in their skills. Also, knowing that they can fall back to an all-rounded welfare package, Danes are happy to innovate and trial-and-error; these qualities are the fundamentals of a knowledge-based economy. And their economic success has proven their theory a workable one. In effect, the Danes focus on giving the resources, time and space for takers to become givers in the future.
In Cambodia, the giver/taker debate surrounds whether people have the capacity to become givers given current constraints. Despite significant progress made towards the two Millennium Development Goals on achieving universal primary education and gender equality in primary and secondary school by 2015, there are many more hurdles to jump over. For instance, the survival rate from Grade One to Six is merely 52.5% in the 2007/08 school year; the transition rate (the % of primary school graduates moving on to secondary school) is around 78.9%. The net enrolment rate (NER) for lower secondary, upper secondary and university levels are 34%, 16% and <5%>Further, there are few channels for drop-outs to re-enter formal education. Options for vocational training are also limited – the training centres operated by the government mostly lack the funding and human resources to be functional. As a result, it is difficult to match the 250,000 young labour market entrants to jobs each year. Mostly unskilled or low-skilled, these young workers have few occupations to choose from. And if they become unemployed, many return to low-productivity activities, such as subsistence farming. Citing these concerns, in my recent conversation with Mr. Teruo Jinnai, the UNESCO Country Representative, he stressed that productivity is the key for “promoting” people to givers. Hence, the giver/taker debate should firstly focus on the ability to generate income for immediate needs (i.e. What are they doing now?) and secondly on the necessary investments for building moral capacity (i.e. What will they become?).
Mr. Jinnai also has an interesting story to tell. A native of Japanese, he pursued his university studies in Canada. In the following thirty years, he worked in the private sector in Europe and Africa… until one day when he woke up asking himself, “Is my work making a difference to those in need? Am I finding this work and this life meaningful? How can I make my work more rewarding?” These few questions, according to him, compelled him to rethink his priorities and landed him this position. Leaving the money-crunching business world, he then entered the world of cultural preservation and education, a field which has worked for 13 years now.
I cannot help but admire his abrupt switch between careers: How much courage does it take to take a bold step like that? More importantly, our lively conversation shed light on another aspect of the definition of the giver. In addition to undertaking action to make concrete changes in society, emphasizing on long-term human capital investment and urging to provide decent work and education for the needy, a giver needs to be a Thinker. He does not blindly follow what everybody else does but formulate goals through personal reflection and obtain motivation by genuine interest. Surely, I can see Mr. Jinnai’s satisfaction, as he delivered a bright smile talking about his upcoming UNESCO mission to Siem Reap.
No comments:
Post a Comment