When Success Means Failure
Toronto Star op-ed, June 3, 2005, by Morley Katz, Chair, North York Harvest Food Bank
This year, somewhat astonishingly, marks the 20th anniversary of the founding of the North York Harvest Food Bank. While we acknowledge this milestone, we don’t find ourselves saying that we are ‘celebrating’ our longevity.
It is widely acknowledged in the community that North York Harvest Food Bank fulfils a critical role; this is evident in the growing use of our services by those in need, and by the continued and growing support of our donors, volunteers and other contributors. But it was never our intent to be here as a permanent fixture in the Toronto landscape. We, like other similar organizations across the country and beyond, find ourselves in a paradoxical situation. Our mission has been ‘To feed those in need and work to reduce hunger.’ It seems that the better we have become at discharging the first part of our mission, the less we have been able to achieve the second part.
And it’s not that our effective and efficient operations have generated more ‘business’; rather, it’s the reverse. The growing demand for our services due to societal needs not being met elsewhere has forced us to continually improve and broaden the scope of our operations and fundraising capabilities. We are subject to ‘demand-side’ economics, not ‘supply-side’. Business is, unfortunately, booming.
One might even argue that we have been very successful at ‘feeding those in need’, but spectacularly unsuccessful at ‘working to reduce hunger’. Maybe it’s all relative; if we hadn’t been as successful providing food as we have been, hunger would be even greater than it is now. So we may have reduced hunger in a relative sense, if not in an absolute one. But this is cold comfort.
Every human system has its inherent weaknesses and imperfections, requiring the implementation of special safeguards to ensure fair, equitable, smooth and safe operation. For example, efficient, free markets and fair trade in democratic societies require the free and timely flow of information to all participants, the absence of collusion, and a means of taking care of the public good (infrastructure such as highways, public health, and so on), that don’t happen ‘naturally’ within the system. We take care of these through laws ensuring full disclosure of information, prohibiting insider trading and monopolies, and by giving the government authority to tax us and spend these revenues on the public good.
Another characteristic of our democratic system and free market economy is that there are invariably weaknesses and imperfections that result in cracks through which some people will fall, more often than not through no fault of their own. People lose their jobs, get sick and can’t work, earn ‘working poor’ wages, or face other unexpected and sometimes overwhelming challenges. These are ordinary people who find themselves in extraordinary circumstances, and need temporary help to get through. Our societal ‘safety net’ frequently does not provide for even the necessities of life for these fellow citizens; they find themselves in the cruel situation of having to choose whether to pay the rent, or buy medicine, or feed the kids. This is simply unacceptable in a caring and affluent society.
The demand for public goods, and the attendant demand for revenue to provide them, both continue to grow. It is a daunting task for governments to collect and allocate these limited resources wisely and effectively. But surely it is a given that in a caring and affluent society no one should be going hungry, having to rely on the good will of others to ensure that they and their loved ones have enough to eat. This is a system failure that demands special safeguards, such as fair and sufficient minimum wages, sufficient welfare coverage, and affordable housing, analogous to those safeguards deemed necessary for free markets to function effectively. Volunteer organizations such as food banks do not have the fundraising capacity to bridge the ever-growing gaps in the system arising from inadequate safeguards, and never will. Moreover, democratic governments representing caring citizens do not have the right to abdicate the responsibility to bridge these gaps and download it to volunteer organizations.
Working to reduce hunger is a challenge much beyond the capabilities of a lone food bank. We have many generous donors and tireless volunteers whose invaluable contributions sustain our efforts. But to truly reduce hunger requires a broad societal mindset that deems hunger to be unacceptable, and holds governments to account for action to allocate resources to ensure this scourge is eliminated.