Par Alix Clément
Rédaction chez Mieux Donner
Temps de lecture : 3 min.
When it comes to supporting disadvantaged groups, the question often arises as to which type of donation is preferable: is it better to offer material goods or cash donations? Research and experience in this area, particularly that of the German donation platform Effektiv-spenden [1], suggests that monetary donations offer significant advantages over donations in kind.
Donations in kind, such as clothing, food or various supplies, may seem like a practical way of helping. However, they have a number of disadvantages:
Cash donations, on the other hand, offer greater flexibility to beneficiaries and have a number of advantages:
The organisation GiveDirectly [2] is a good example of the effectiveness of cash donations. Since 2009, it has distributed direct cash transfers of $1,000 to more than 440,000 rural households in Africa, totalling more than $220 million in aid to the poorest populations. Recipients use these funds for essential needs such as healthcare, education, entrepreneurship, access to drinking water, solar panels, home improvements and irrigation.
Studies such as that carried out by the Happier Lives Institutes [3] show that cash transfers have a lasting positive impact in terms of people’s general well-being and an increase in their standard of living. For example, ongoing research has revealed that recipients were still spending 12% more than the control group five to seven years after receiving a one-off payment, demonstrating the long-term impact of cash transfers on recipients and their communities.
Cash donations offer a more appropriate and effective response to the needs of disadvantaged populations. They enable recipients to make informed decisions about the use of funds, promote the local economy and reduce the logistical costs associated with in-kind donations. Organisations like GiveDirectly are demonstrating that cash transfers can have a significant and lasting impact on reducing poverty and improving community well-being.
Finally, there are other ways of ‘getting rid’ of objects that are no longer of use to us, such as donating them to charities closer to home to reduce transport costs, or sending the money from the sale of these goods to disaster-stricken or poverty-stricken populations in other countries.
Finland, Iceland, Denmark lead the 2026 ranking. Full list of 147 countries, key findings on social media and wellbeing, and how your donations create happiness.
Human life is precious. It is natural to want to mobilise all our resources to save a life, even if it only prolongs a life by a week. But what happens when other people are also in danger, and our resources are not enough to help them all? As a society, we face practical limits that force us to make difficult decisions.
It’s easy to feel discouraged by the dramatic retreat of glaciers in the Alps and the scale of climate change can easily leave us feeling powerless. This article will equip you with the knowledge to take meaningful climate action, in both your personal life and through your charitable donations.
Is deciding from London or Paris who needs help and how a form of colonialism? This article examines what the critique gets right, where it goes wrong, and what effective giving does concretely differently — including its own blind spots.
Scared Straight won an Oscar and increased delinquency. Open Philanthropy invested $130 million in criminal justice reform — then changed course. Romain Barbe examines what the evidence actually says, and where your money can do the most good.
31 confirmed deaths, or nearly a million? Romain Barbe examines what the data actually say about Chernobyl’s human toll — and why the fear it generated may have killed far more than the radiation itself.
