Philanthropy

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”.

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.

One of today’s Op/Eds in the Toronto Star discusses the differences between US and Canadian charitable practices and raises a good point.

The author starts off by talking about Oprah’s Big Give (warning: annoying sound and video, not work friendly), in which two teams worked to improve conditions in a rundown US public school. She points out that neither team stops to ponder why the school ever got to such a sorry state. From there she discusses Canada’s (possibly eroding) tradition of progressive social policies (taxes paying for public services) as opposed to the US tradition of smaller government.

First, I think she is a little tough on Oprah. I haven’t seen the show, but my guess is that the people working to improve those schools all do think that the general condition of many US public schools is shameful. But that wasn’t the task at hand for them. It isn’t a social policy programming, it’s a charity-based game show. Lighten up.

But I guess we have to accept that newspaper writers have to glob on to whatever hook they can, and the content of the article is actually pretty interesting. It isn’tthe first time anybody has made this argument, but basically she is saying that in the US we give money privately to the causes we support and the services we like, when everyone may be better off if we used the government for those services. Whether or not you agree with that argument says a lot about your personal politics. But I wonder how many US philanthropists believe that their donations are going to replace the taxes they don’t pay. I bet not very many.

Alanna Shaikh (my wife) recently wrote a very useful post on how to research NGOs. To paraphrase her advice, there are ways that you can tell what an NGO really is - not just what its press releases say. To do this you have to put in some time on the NGOs website and Charity Navigator, but it is a small price to pay to learn what is happening with your money.

I came across a video posted to YouTube today by a group called Media For Good. I couldn’t find much about them, this is their first video, and all their profile doesn’t say much. The video starts off strong. Production quality is high, and it is actually quite moving. It starts by giving poignant examples of the many problems facing the Arab world today - high unemployment and low expenditure on education or innovation. But when it tries to give a hopeful message, everything goes south.

After asking that we “give strategically”, it then suggests some bold goals for employment and education. The thing is, setting goals isn’t the same thing as a strategy. Without a plan to achieve your goals, the whole endeavor will never get going.

There is certainly a place for inspiration, but I think you have to tell people what they can do with that inspiration.I assume the video is aimed at Arabs who would like to give money to a good cause, but how does this help them? There is no contact information for an organization, not even a connection to the Millenium Development Goals, which at least have some kind of loose plan, if not a coordinated strategy.

Media for Good is new to YouTube, and may be new to advocacy as well, so I don’t want to be too hard on them. This was a good first effort and I’ll be looking forward to their next video. If nothing else it is an interesting look at what a group of Arab activists see as the major problems in the region - the economy and education.

AsianWeek ran an article yesterday discussing the differences between oriental and occidental philanthropic practices. The Asian model, they say, is more based on quiet philanthropy and assistance to families and communities. I commented on a similar article back in January. It doesn’t presume to establish large foundations.

I’ve seen this practice for myself in Russia (not exactly an eastern culture) and Central Asia, and friends have reported similar stories from their travels in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. For that reason, I always assumed that this community giving was a survival practice in places where the safety net isn’t provided by the state or financial system - not a factor of an inherent element of Asian culture. To survive people have to band together and help out when their brother/neighbor/friend is having problems. I don’t know, but would guess that Europeans and Americans had similar practices in leaner times.

There may yet be something to this idea of Asian family values driving very private philanthropy, but to be convinced I’d have to see the pattern hold while controlling for levels of economic development. It is interesting that AsianWeek is writing about Asian Americans - many of whom may have been in the US for generations.  It would also be interesting to look at giving patterns in an Asian country that has been wealthy for a multiple generations - Japan comes to mind, and then to watch giving patterns in China as its economy grows. I don’t have the time to investigate these issues, but wish that I did.

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

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 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.