Philanthropy

This report from the Center for Health and Gender Equity actually came out in April, but it just appeared in my Google Alerts today. The report argues that the US government - still one of the world’s largest providers of condoms through foreign aid - should send more female condoms. They are currently 2% of US condom buys. The Center wants this percentage to be increased so that there can be a serious effort to market female condoms and get more people using them.

The idea is that female condoms allow women to protect themselves and their partners from STIs without having to convince a many to wear a condom. It makes sense for cultures where conversations about sex are highly taboo, I guess. I still have to wonder if men in these relationships (whether transactional or romantic) don’t still have enough power to demand no condom use at all.

This is getting into a very technical area, and I’m not going to pretend to be an expert. But I think it is a legitimate question if the female condom is just a bad product that people won’t use, or if it needs to be marketed better. Few people like female condoms, but it isn’t as if regular condoms are universally popular - so customer satisfaction is clearly not the only important factor. If the female condom wasn’t so weird and alien, maybe it would be used more. But what percentage of our foreign aid needs to be spent on priming the female condom supply, versus ensuring a sufficient supply of the product that people already know?

Rightfully there is a lot of attention going to the Burma cyclone tragedy, and the attempts to get aid to those in need. Personally I like this article from the BBC, which gives a good rundown of the specific risks and the political wrangling that surrounds the issue.

At times like this it is helpful to remember the mantra: “The people of Burma do not deserve to die because they have a bad government.”

The Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria is considering  starting a loan program for countries that can afford it, but still need help buying HIV meds. I guess it makes sense in a way, but it is a pretty stark change from the traditional wisdom on foreign aid loans, isn’t it? I thought the idea was that a country would develop and over time its economy would get better and it could repay the loan. Like taking student loans because you know you’ll make more money when you get out. Or buying a house because (cough cough) it’s a good investment.

I suppose the idea is that if you don’t take care of your HIV problem your economy will fall apart anyway, so by that logic it is a good investment.

This op/ed from the Times of India is worth a read. It discusses the rising wealth of many Indians, and argues that a rise in personal philanthropy is not coming along with it. India has 52 billionaires, the most in Asia. But it has only 4 people on the Forbes list of 48 top Asian philanthropists.

Of course, it depends a lot on how you measure philanthropy. A lot of Indian billionaires might be giving generously but unanimously, or giving to poor family members even. But it does indicate that India’s wealthy are not sharing their wealth. I wonder how much this is an Indian thing, though. The op/ed gives prominent examples of US philanthropists, but that isn’t statistically meaningful. There must be more US billionaires than Indian billionaires. A few examples of the generous doesn’t demonstrate a Western priority on giving.

But the author does give a great qute from US philanthropist Christopher Hohn, “‘A man who dies rich, dies disgraced”.

According to a survey of Latin American immigrants, the number of people sending remittances home to Latin America has fallen significantly in only a few years. In 2006 73 percent of immigrants from the region sent money home, but now it is only half. The fall is credited to anti-immigrant sentiment in the US that makes people afraid to call attention to themselves. The dollar amounts have also fallen, and the weak dollar is making the remittances that do go through less valuable.

The British government has set up a new research center between six different colleges associated with the University of London. They’re going to be studying a broad range of international development subjects based in both the natural and social sciences including:

• Climate change
• Agriculture
• Growth
• Health
• Governance in challenging environment and
• Longer term development opportunities

Nice article in World Mag (Today’s News, Christian Views) about work being done by Engineers Without Borders. As a case study it works well, but EWB also makes a very good argument for building local ownership of projects.

Towards the end the article gets a little bit weird, as the author takes issue with EWB’s characterization of poverty and disease as a cause of “sin”. It seems like an interesting theological question, but doesn’t have a lot to do with the issue. On the whole its worth a read.

Reading this AP article about a Credit Suisse banker who was arrested in Brazil for helping rich Brazilians escape their own taxes reminded me of a panel discussion I heard last year. The link has audio for all the speakers, and I particularly recommend Raymond Baker’s presentation.

Basically there are a hundreds of billions of dollars that are stolen from the developing world every year and invested in the economies of wealthier countries. Legitimate financial systems are used for a lot of these investments, and the total figure is probably several times larger than all foreign aid funds. It’s a huge problem, and a commitment to development should include doing something to fix it.

Read this wire article on recent congressional testimony by Oxfam and try to determine what Oxfam is actually recommending that Congress do. It’s tough. My guess is the author didn’t understand what the testimony was saying. But the testimony is well worth a read. They got it right, but probably mixed terms in a confusing way.

As I interpret it, Oxfam is saying that we need development (they call it poverty reduction, which is technically different and a group of wonks could have a fun time tossing it around, but for the rest of us I think we can just call them interchangeable. Anyway, I like the sound of development better). We need development for a llot of reasons - it is morally repugnant for human beings to be so poor, it is dangerous for the international system for humans to be so poor, and  it is a good way to get people to like Americans. All of these are reason that we need development, and I’m willing to bet that mainstream thinking at Oxfam is that we should be happy with the first one, but in the testimony they say all are valid.

But the key is that for all these things we need DEVELOPMENT - not foreign aid. Foreign aid is how we get development, not an end in itself. So every time we use our foreign aid to achieve a short-term security aim, we are actually undermining the thing we need, which is development.

I may be reading too much into it, because that is exactly what I think, but I hope I’m right and that Congress listens.

The Global Philanthropy Forum (GPF) concluded its 7th annual conference in Redwood City, California earlier this month, featuring the Archbishop Desmond Tutu and other leaders, activists, and social investors engaged in global causes. Participants examined how their philanthropic efforts can strategically address issues including trafficking, child soldiers, hunger, education, and violent conflict. Looking to the future of philanthropy, attendees examined “web-based, purpose-driven social networking” and the broader intersection of technology and activism.

Singers Peter Gabriel and Annie Lennox, along with actress Julia Ormond (left), addressed the GPF community, serving as powerful examples of the influence of art and celebrity in advancing human rights. Ormond described her work in combating human trafficking, proclaiming that it is “time for the world to acknowledge that slavery still exists,” citing examples from Ghana, Cambodia, India, and the U.S.

The three-day program concluded with a panel featuring Gareth Evans, President and CEO of the International Crisis Group, and Samantha Power of Harvard University’s Carr Center for Human Rights Policy. Discussing the prevention of genocide and other mass atrocity crimes, Power recommended that more philanthropic resources be dedicated to advancing the rule of law. Also stressing the importance of social activism, Power pointed to GPF participants as examples of “up-standers,” as opposed to bystanders, who speak out and take action in the face of such violence and injustice worldwide.

Photo at Top: Brizio Biondi-Morra of Fundacion AVINA, Jeff Skoll of the Skoll Foundation, Sheryl Sandberg of Facebook, and musician Peter Gabriel of WITNESS and The Elders.

Note: Guest writer Rohini Gupta worked at the World Affairs Council during its launch of the Global Philanthropy Forum in 2001.