$100 Million to Change the World With a MacArthur Grant
The MacArthur Foundation just announced that it will award $100 million to an organization with the best meaningful (and feasible) proposal to use that money to solve a pressing social problem. And there are plenty to choose from: In the U.S., homelessness has skyrocketed in cities, the number of heroin overdose deaths have tripled, and the maternal mortality rate is steadily rising, to name a few. But is $100 million enough to “solve” a social problem?
* announce = 발표하다, 알리다/ award = 수여하다/ feasible = 실현 가능한/ pressing = 긴급한; 거절[무시]하기 힘든/ skyrocket = 급등하다/ heroin overdose = 헤로인 과다복용/ triple = 3배가 되다; 3배로 만들다/ maternal mortality rate = 산모 사망률/ to name (but) a few = 두서너 가지 예만 들자면
$100 million은 사회 문제를 해결하기에 충분한가요?
1. Remember, Money Doesn’t Have to Be the Root of All Evil
Social problems can be alleviated with cash but a big impediment to doing so is our moral psychology: trading values against money can make people uncomfortable.
2. Money Rarely Solves Complex Social Problems
The millions of dollars spent annually on law enforcement have not reduced illegal drug use, for example.
3. Fund Locally Developed, Culturally Relevant Services
Solutions to problems are best generated by those most affected. They know best why the problem exists, and what needs to happen in order to solve it.
4. Group Incentives Can Be Applied to Social Problems
Money can stretch surprisingly far when it is offered as a reward to a community, conditional on group — rather than individual — outcomes.
Sample Essay
Remember, Money Doesn’t Have to Be the Root of All Evil
It may cost more than $100 million, but many social problems could be alleviated with the creative infusion of cash. Compensating organ donors could increase the supply of organs and save thousands of lives annually. Paying opium farmers in Afghanistan and Latin America to grow something else could bring an even larger dividend in averted addictions and wars. And why not neutralize opposition to reducing carbon emissions by reimbursing coal miners, or the entire fossil fuel industry, for their losses?
A big impediment is our moral psychology. People hold certain values sacred, and the very thought of trading them off against other goods (particularly via money) is considered heinous. We see this in metaphors that equate financial transactions with moral treachery: sellout, buy off, mercenary, whore. In one study, Israeli and Palestinian extremists presented with a hypothetical peace deal were more opposed — indeed, incensed — when it was sweetened with cash compensation from the United States and the European Union.
Fortunately, human cognition is flexible, and the taboo surrounding a transaction can be mitigated if the transaction is conceived in alternative ways. Life insurance was once considered an outrage because it places a dollar value on human life and allows wives to bet their husbands will die. The insurance industry reframed it as an act of responsibility by husbands, who would be fulfilling their duty to their families even when they were dead. People who are scandalized at the thought of paying organ donors in cash calm down when the compensation takes the form of tuition credits, health insurance or a retirement contribution.
As technology and globalization generate ever-greater surpluses while disrupting traditional livelihoods, the challenge of reallocating money for moral purposes will become more acute. If profits from self-driving trucks are shared with unemployed truck drivers, everyone wins. Negative income taxes, a guaranteed income and charities that give directly to beneficiaries are probably less corrupting than people think, and offer a pathway to enjoying the windfall of technological advances in the face of Luddites and isolationists — but only if we overcome the intuition that money is the root of all evil.
