Philanthropy

After posting about the upcoming NBC drama about a renegade, philanthropist billionaire I realized that I had some more to say. To be sure, the show does sound like an aid worker wish fulfillment fantasy. This guy gets to travel the world and really see his beneficiaries, and NEVER has to write a funding proposal, program report, or success story. He never has to manage a budget or decipher the Fly America policy. Who wouldn’t love that?

But obviously NBC doesn’t make TV hoping to appeal to the aid worker demographic. They make shows that they think will appeal to a broad US audience. I’m assuming that  superhero stories are about wish fulfillment, and that the nature of the wish stems from what the audience feels it is lacking. If that common wisdom is correct, then I think NBC’s plan suggests that Americans are feeling trapped in a world full of war, poverty, and death. That there is so much suffering in the world that we can’t possibly change it, and the institutions set up for us are either ineffective or corrupt. In response, here is a man who has the power to skip past that system and really DO something. At least, that is what NBC is banking on.

I may be reading too much into this.

NBC has a new superhero drama coming out next season, and the hero’s primary power seems to be money. Like Bruce Wayne without the cool car. Our new hero is The Philanthropist, a “renegade billionaire” who helps those in need. I love this hollywood phrasing “Instead of spending $25,000 a plate at a fudnraiser, he’s dodging bullets in third-world countries to hand-deliver vaccine.”

From that description I doubt that it will have a single thing to do with actual philanthropy or foreign assistance. Not any more than Batman has with actual crime fighting, anyway. Still, I’m willing to watch it. It sounds like wish fulfillment for aid workers, and wish fulfillment is what super heroes are all about.

The FT reports that a large number of wealthy private philanthropists see the advantage in living like the world’s poor for a week - and are willing to pay 8,000 pounds for the privledge (along with a course on how to be a better philanthropist). That’s a lot of money, but the organizers say they that there is more demand than they can accomodate.

I’m not British, but can I please work for the British Department for International Development? They’ve just announced that their international staff will be immersed for one week with poorer communities every time they reach a new posting.

The idea is to give them a clearer perspective on who they are trying to help - and avoid the impression that the capital’s relative comforts are a normal part of life for most people. It’s a good idea, and I can’t imagine it isn’t popular with DFID’s staff. In fact, it almost sounds like some kind of dream that the career people were able to hoodwink the political staff into approving.

This isn’t a surprise, I guess, but a group of relief agencies announced that the security environment in Somalia has become too dangerous for them to reach millions of Somalis. The CNN headline reads “Relief agencies: Somalia too dangerous for us to work” and although they may have said that, the article doesn’t quote it, and I think it may have been a misinterpretation of what they meant. The actual quotes in the article sound a lot more to me like Oxfam and World Vision (2 of the NGOs listed in the article) were saying that the security conditions were stopping them from getting to some vulnerable populations, not that all work in Somalia was impossible. The article also doesn’t say that any organizations plan to leave.

I wrote a post recently on a British program to encourage volunteerism abroad. For those of us who aren’t extremely wealthy, sometimes it seems like the only way to make a difference is to give our own time. I also think it is natural for people who become very interested in a movement as important as addressing global poverty to want to dedicate themselves to it full time. But it isn’t an easy field to break into, especially if you want one of the more interesting jobs overseas.

A frequent commenter to this blog, Alanna Shaikh (who is also married to me) recently wrote what I think is a very good description of why it is so hard to get an international development position, and how to overcome the challenges. She was writing for the women’s professional advice website Damsels in Success, but her comments are equally relevant for men.

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.

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.

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.