Conventional wisdom holds that there is no such thing as a "free lunch," meaning that every act, no matter how selfless or generous it may appear to be, carries with it some sort of hidden cost or obligation. This hidden cost may be a quid pro quo arrangement, in which the recipient of a "free" service or other benefit becomes obligated to repay the donor in kind at a later date. Another outcome of such an arrangement could be an obligation to pay for a more expensive service or product. When cellular phone companies offer potential customers a "free" phone, for example, there is often a condition attached which requires a multi-year contract for required services.
The concept of a "free lunch" actually started in the days of the American saloon. Saloon owners would frequently drum up business by offering a free lunch to anyone who entered their establishments. These offerings ranged from basic sandwiches to elaborate seafood and steak plates. The catch was that recipients of this lunch had to purchase at least one alcoholic drink at full price. While some customers balked at this requirement, most agreed to the condition. The price of a drink was still cheaper than the equivalent cost of such a meal at a restaurant.
The feasibility of a metaphorical free lunch often extends into economics and politics. Again, many experts agree that there is no such thing as a free lunch when it comes to the world's macroeconomy. Grain donated to a drought-stricken country may spare its population from starvation, for instance, but the producers of that grain still have to absorb the costs of producing, storing and delivering it. Obviously there is no truly free lunch as long as there are expenses incurred somewhere to provide it. But it could also be argued that the food donations saved an entire workforce from starving to death, and their contributions to the world's economy would far outweigh the costs of keeping them alive until they could recover from the drought.
Even when thinking in the most charitable way possible, it is very difficult for any organization to provide a truly free lunch. Recipients of material and financial assistance from non-profit or governmental aid programs may be strongly urged to contribute equivalent "sweat equity" in order to receive ongoing benefits. Religious organizations may provide food, clothing and shelter to the needy, but they could also ask recipients to attend religious services in order to receive the relief. None of these conditions might be considered unreasonable, but they are conditions nonetheless.
In this case, conventional wisdom may have gotten it right. While hoping for a truly "free lunch" for the world's neediest populations may still be a laudable goal, there are economic, political and social realities which currently make it extremely difficult to implement such a program on a global scale.
