Beneficence, Street Begging, and Diverted Giving Schemes
| DOI | 10.1177/1065912918768031 |
| Published date | 01 December 2018 |
| Author | Cristian Pérez-Muñoz |
| Date | 01 December 2018 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-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
https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912918768031
DOI: 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 beg-
gars. 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 justi-
fied. It offers a normative evaluation of the main idea
1Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile
behind this policy, namely, that anonymous and sponta-
neous 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: crperezm@uc.cl
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 indir...
To continue reading
Request your trial