Philanthropy

The UK government has decided to set aside 13 million pounds to encourage public servants (doctors, nurses, teachers, and police) to volunteer in the developing world. As I understand it, the program will pay into the pension funds for volunteers while they are away from their primary duties in Britain. As always, a lot depends on implementation (where they volunteer, what they will do) but it is an encouraging sign that the UK is willing to put public money behind volunteerism.

The astoundingly influential economist and development guru Jeffrey Sachs has a new book coming out next week. It is called Common Wealth: Economics for a Crowded Planet, and has laudatory blurbs by both Al Gore and Kofi Annan. Sachs is a great writer, and although I sometimes disagree with him (among other issues I disagree with his assertion that poor governance and corruption aren’t a significant factor in global poverty) his work is always useful. I also think his view of a world that can save itself is inspiring.

As a further reason to pay attention to this book, Sachs is such a big name that it probably won’t matter if Common Wealth is a terrible book. It will be the biggest development discussion of 2008 anyway. The theme of the book is that humanity as a whole faces a series of potentially devastating challenges, but that each of them can be addressed if we have the will: extreme poverty, environmental degradation, population growth, and international political logjams.

His think piece for Time magazine, which is also titled “Common Wealth” and tackles many of these same issues, gives examples of human ingenuity and technology solving global problems. One of these examples is the eradication of small pox. To me this represents very well the technocratic, engineering style that Sachs advocates.

Small pox eradication was a very special case where the human technology of vaccination was well matched to the nature of the virus. By applying a lot of pure brute force (this was in the grand old days when international public health officials got to fly around in helicopters) and a whole lot of money, the problem was solved. There was relatively little need to worry about societies or their systems or ways of life. There was basically no need to worry about sustainability, or small pox coming back. The four problems Sachs takes on are much more complex.

The Time piece was pretty short, and he didn’t have the space to address every aspect of his argument. I’m looking forward to reading how he addresses this problem when he has a whole book to lay out his plans.

PS: Slate is running a detailed conversation between Sachs and Martin Wolf.

Tired of all the other reasons to give to charity, how about avoiding eternal damnation?

There’s a nice series of comments in today’s Guardian from farmers in Costa Rica, Kenya, and Mali praising Fairtrade, and identifying it as a positive force in their lives.

 Global philanthropy is about the positive impact that people in one place can have on the lives of others around the world. Unfortunately, it’s just as easy - probably easier - to have a negative impact on the rest of the world. This weekend the Guardian published several articles discussing the impact of British cocaine on Africa. The discussion centers around a comment written by Antonio Maria Costa, executive director of the United National Office on Drugs and Crime. Costa cites the horrible effects that the drug trade has on stability and development in many African countries. He goes on to blame celebrities who glamorize drugs for helping perpetuate the problem. He specifically cites Amy Winehouse, but another article points out that she is probably not the right target, as her drug use is far from the most alluring part of her image. The report also describes the effects of drugs in Guinea Bissau, and provides a brief analysis of non-African impact of the drug trade.

Drug users are always an easy target, and the drug trade is definitely the source of many bad things. Doesn’t it seem a little bit too easy, though to just blame the drug users for these problems? First, as many commenters have pointed out, one possible way around the crime accompanying drugs is to legalize them. Second, we all do untold amounts of damage  every time we buy the wrong coffee. Finally, the global banking system happily sucks up the ill gotten wealth of the developing world’s leaders and oligarchs, that has at least as powerful an effect on state capacity as the drug trade.

Should cocaine addicts stop using? Oh yeah. For lots of reasons, but I don’t really see why the world needed three new articles to tell us that.

Donorschoose.org is a domestic charity that allows people to fund projects designed by US public school teachers. It is a great initiative, started by teachers but expanded with funding from several successful internet entrepreneurs, and offers donors a lot of information before they give as well as information on project implemention. The format is a lot like Sean Stannard Stockton suggested was the future of philanthropy.

The site’s directors recently gave what looks like it was a very poorly attended presentation at Google Tech Talks. It is almost an hour long, but does a great job explaining how it all works.

I would like to thank the New York Times Magzine for giving me what is sure to be a week’s worth of entries by dedicating an issue to philanthropy.

Today I’d like to comment on David Leonhardt’s article “What Makes People Give?”. The article discusses some interesting behavioral economics research that suggests that the reasons people give to charity are much more complicated than we usually think.

One theory that the research supports is the “warm glow”theory. This suggests that people give money in order to be the kind of person who gives money - the effects of the donation are secondary. Leonhardt points out that this means philanthropy needn’t be zero-sum because the existence of bigger donors (like Gates and Murdoch) doesn’t make regular people stop wanting to feel like philanthropists. That’s a good point.

I think the “warm glow” feeling also suggests that we should be more careful about programs like (Red) that allow people to buy into the philanthropy for the cheap price of a $25 t-shirt. My fear is that the t-shirt will be enough to make people feel like they are contributing and cause them to give less through more effective causes.

But this is just an initial concern, if the economic conclusions in the article tell us anything, it is that the psyschology behind philanthropy is complicated, and it isn’t a good idea to jump to conclusions before we’ve had a chance to test them.

The website www.onphilanthropy.com has already published the first two segments in a five part series on philanthropy outside the US. The first went up last month, and discusses the importance of foreign-based philanthropy in a world where a great number of poor countries are experiencing high levels of economic growth. Today’s installment discusses philanthropy in Latin America. Both posts are pretty long. The second is particularly useful. It outlines the four major sources of philanthropy in the region. They will sound quite similar to sources everywhere, but Onphlanthropy gives the important details.

1. The Catholic Church

2. Foundations - which we would think of as NGOs that provide public services

3. Wealthy individuals

4.  Corporations - the fastest changing philanthropic sector in the region.

The proliferation of social networking websites is accompanied by a lot of excitement. The possibilities of the format seem limitless. Many people (OK, maybe it is just me, but I don’t think I’m all alone) find that after taking the work to put together a Facebook profile they are left with a a big, sad question “What do I do now?” For everyone who has ever struggled to find the entertainment in sending their friends imaginary cupcakes, there is now Unltdworld.com, a social networking website that aims to bring together socially conscious people and help them benefit their own communities. I found the site through Jemima Kiss’s Digital Content Blog at the Guardian. Her interview with Unltdworld’s manager gives a good, brief rundown of what they are all about. I have a couple of thoughts, some of which are more serious than others:

1. Unltdworld? Typing four additional letters would have been too arduous? I know that complaining about SMS-language is a horrible cliche, but so is self consciously abbreviating spellings.

2. I’ve only had time to go through the short tour, but it looks like a well designed site that offers the full range of standard social networking services, plus some useful additions. One is the research section, that allows users to access data on other projects. Another allows users to share resources, like documents and funding information.

3. I usually try to avoid commenting on sites that are specifically domestic philanthropy-oriented (this is a FOREIGN policy blog), and this seems to be aimed at people working in their own communities. Because the site wants to make money off selling premium services, I would guess a primarily European/North American membership for a while. But there is no reason that the same forum couldn’t be used for foreign assistance projects, or by people in the developing world.

The Financial Times got real scoop yesterday, a report on the state of philanthropy in 2033. The author of the report is Sean Stannard Stockton from Tactical Philanthropy.

Sean writes about the rise of “social capital markets”, in which non-profits compete for funds much as corporations do today. In the world of 2033, donors are more like investors - they seek out opportunities rather than demanding grant proposals. He talks more about the donor/investor divide on his blog.

The idea is interesting, and appealing.  But I do think that large donors would prefer continue to design development strategies that meet goals of their own choosing, rather than let the non-profits drive programming choices.