Optimal allocation of humanitarian resources (by Tanguy)

I spent the weekend with the kids in the Thai-Cambodian border city of Koh Kong, about 200km south west of Phnom Penh. The orphanage takes the children on a trip to discover "the outside world" twice a year and I was lucky enough to arrive at the right time; so I tagged along. I must say I had an amazing weekend; we visited a zoo, saw a forest of special Cambodian trees that grow only in the sea water and the highlight of my trip was swimming in the ocean along side dolphins (Note: I was happy when realized they were dolphins and not sharks)

I also discovered Cambodia outside its capital city and saw much of the poverty and misery that plague its rural regions. This brought me to reflect on the apparent contrast between the opportunities the orphans I work with enjoy and the millions of other children, orphans or not, who are still left in the dark.

In a previous post "The humanitarian dream" I write that thanks to the Sovann Komar village, the abandoned orphans now have access to education like other children in Cambodia. Well, not every child in Cambodia has access to school, in fact it has become obvious to me that little actually do. As I come to this realization, I now ask myself how to best allocate humanitarian resources in order to maximize their long-term impact on the world. These are a few of the thoughts currently on my mind.

The Sovann Komar village is doing an outstanding job! The childeren go to school (currently an outside school), learn to speak proper English (which I never did as you can tell from all my grammatical errors in this blog) and can do math almost as well as kids of their age in the US. In short, I have been immensely impressed by the kids' abilities, and believe that many of these orphans have a true potential to serve as tomorrow leaders inside or outside of Cambodia.

As I compared the situation of the Sovann Komar orphans with that of the other kids I met along the way to Koh Kong, I feel a sense of unfairness and discomfort. Shouldn't they also receive a share of the humanitarian pie? Why am I helping the kids who are already in an orphange rather than those children for whom much still needs to be done?

I try to reconcile this feeling with the follow thought experiment: assume the capital available to fight poverty in Cambodia is set and limited to $1 million (this represents money as well as time and effort spent). That capital can be allocated to help say 1 million children each receiving $1 of aid equivalent; or the same capital can spent to help 1,000 children each with $1,000 of aid equivalent. In the first case, 1 million children will be better off but only marginally so with no clear long-term improvement overall. In the second scenario the
large resource allocation will enable these 1,000 children to grow and become successful leaders, entrepreneurs, professors, and politicians (the rare good ones). This is Sovann Komar's mission. Remembering how they are the products of successful humanitarian programs, these grown-up children will then take upon their shoulder the responsibility to effect change and contribute themselves by expanding, recreating and developing succesful humanitarian programs around the world. A significant long-term impact on the original purpose of fighting poverty may then be achieved.

This logic is how I try to reconcile the apparent unfairness to the million of children we are currently not helping because the resources are being concentrated on a few. Sovann Komar concentrates its resources to make a significant impact on the lives of a few orphans knowing that years later these orphans will in turns give back and work towards the betterment of society for future generations -- at least I like to think of it that way.


(Note to myself: mathematical optimization of the allocation of humanitarian resources sounds like a good complex topic to spend some time studying; factor in both short and long term effects; for what time frame is concentration of resources better)