Media: jump out of the Diao Min mentality to see donate villa stranded storm

category:Global
 Media: jump out of the Diao Min mentality to see donate villa stranded storm


At that time, all kinds of sarcastic comments on villagers, greed of human nature, deserved poverty, ascending mien, fighting rice hatred... To sum up is a word: the Diao people. Even Liu Qiangdong, who is also helping the poor in the countryside, commented: the countryside is very complicated. A little carelessness will burn up! Obviously, great good deeds can also lead to numerous contradictions and even accusations. The real countryside is not the idyllic pastoral song of the literati, but is the rural world really so complex and difficult to measure? Is the heart of the rural people really as dark and unreasonable as some people say? Chen Sheng and Liu Qiangdong both entered the famous universities from the countryside and later became entrepreneurs through the struggle. If they were all afraid of the countryside, they were doubtful about charity and poverty alleviation. It was not a good sign. But through further reports by the media, I found that the donating the villa is not so absurd as originally imagined. The logic of villagers thinking and behavior should not be easily summed up as Tiao Min. First of all, the word Diao Min invented by the ancients is a very bad word. The Diao Min and dusk corresponding to Diao Min was created by dusk. If we encounter problems, we will not go deep into investigation and mediate the demands of all people. If we tie up a hat of Diao people, then everything will be all right. The thought of Diao Min is more incompatible with modern society, but people still find it difficult to explain things or borrow this set of thinking. The Shelved villa is in fact not related to the inferiority of any group, because it is a widespread public harnessing problem in the world. How many thinkers and politicians have scratched their heads, is it a small official lake village that can be easily solved? Aristotle once said, the public land of the greatest majority is often the least of the things to be taken care of. People care about their own things and ignore the public. In 1968, economist Garrett Harding put forward the famous tragedy of the commons theory: assuming that there is an open pasture where everyone can freely graze. Everyone will instinctively put more sheep in order to gain greater benefits, but when everyone does this, the pasture will degenerate because of overloading, and everyones interests will be damaged. Tragedy of the commons exists widely, as small as a village to the whole earth, for example, global warming is the tragedy of the commons which is imminent. Although the villa donated by the rich is not a natural resource, it can be equated to natural resources because it is paid to the villagers without compensation. In addition, at the beginning of the construction, there was no clear distribution plan, and the villagers Old Homestead and residence were not dealt with, so the villas became the common goods of each man who wanted more than a handful of wool. This has nothing to do with farmers like to take advantage of the advantages. Urban residents in the same situation may not do better. It is not so unreasonable to look at the demands of the villagers. For example, the allocation scheme is set for each household, but some households are few, some households are many, and there are still sons to split up in the future. These are the real problems. Before the sons of the countryside married, the village would give the homestead. Why separate villas do not consider tradition need explanation. It is understood that the local government has decided to open up a piece of land and allocate it to villagers who need housing in the future. There are also villagers, their home buildings and the courtyard is to change two sets of villas, other peoples household small mud tile house is also two sets of houses, which is not fair, so put forward to the same as the relocation of compensation. In theory, as long as the villa is better than the original one, it is equal to the advantage. But do not suffer from widows and suffer from inequality is the ancient mentality. It is noted that the equality in ancient prose is not an average, but rather the meaning of getting ones own score. Living in a village, the house represents the economic status. Some villagers, through their own efforts, are better off than others. This is a matter of face. Now that the big boss divides the villa, everyone returns to the same starting line. Naturally, a good life will be unbalanced. Or, the original two families are almost the same, but one family just took the money to build a new house. Now it is a relative loss to replace the villa with a new one. If the villagers disagreement leads to the delay in delivery of the villa, or even stir up the village contradiction, it is certainly a loss for all. But the reason is not so much as the short eyes of the villagers, it is better to say that this matter is too simple at the beginning of the plan, and the benefit coordination mechanism, such as the villagers autonomy, has not played its due role. At present, the local is still discussing the villa distribution plan. We hope to have a good result. This is also a useful lesson for all people who want to go to the countryside to do charity and help the poor: you can manage a big company, but you may not be able to manage a village. Corporate governance and village governance are completely different. Moreover, the local style charity like money making and housing distribution is almost inevitably faced with the problem of distribution, and it is easy to breed the mentality of doing nothing for nothing. So if external forces want to go to the countryside to do good deeds, it is better to start in areas that are never easy to dispute, such as donating schools, building roads and building nursing homes. The source of this article: surging news writer: Xi Po responsible editor: Ji Ke _b6492 If the villagers disagreement leads to the delay in delivery of the villa, or even stir up the village contradiction, it is certainly a loss for all. But the reason is not so much as the short eyes of the villagers, it is better to say that this matter is too simple at the beginning of the plan, and the benefit coordination mechanism, such as the villagers autonomy, has not played its due role. At present, the local is still discussing the villa distribution plan. We hope to have a good result. This is also a useful lesson for all people who want to go to the countryside to do charity and help the poor: you can manage a big company, but you may not be able to manage a village. Corporate governance and village governance are completely different. Moreover, the local style charity like money making and housing distribution is almost inevitably faced with the problem of distribution, and it is easy to breed the mentality of doing nothing for nothing. So if external forces want to go to the countryside to do good deeds, it is better to start in areas that are never easy to dispute, such as donating schools, building roads and building nursing homes.