Philanthropy

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.

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.

There’s a good, if somewhat long, article in the New York Times today about the fall of Australian rice production due to drought, and the effects that has had on world food prices. This is turning into an increasingly scary problem, and every major news outlet has covered examples of the scariness like the Haiti food riots over the past few weeks.

I agree that the idea of a sustained, rapid increase in food prices has terrifying implications, but it involves a nexus of so many complex subjects - including environmental science, agriculture, energy policy, and economics - that I don’t really know where to begin peeling it apart.

Next week I’ll be speaking with an expert on the subject, and hopefully will get a better idea what is really going on, and what we should really be afraid of. Until then I’d just like to point out that doomsday scenarios have been discussed but never seen for a lot of problems - bird flu jumps to mind. It isn’t that we shouldn’t think about this new catastrophe waiting to happen, but a level headed consideration of the problem is required.

Last week the Guardian ran an opinion piece by Julie Bindel on the use of female nudity to raise money for charities and causes. I have to admit that I hadn’t noticed this trend, but Bindel provides enough examples to demonstrate that it does indeed exist.

It seems to me that she describes two fundamentally different things as part of this trend. The first is the use of nudity in advertising and public events as part of awareness raising efforts - such as PETA’s “I’d rather go naked than wear fur” campaign. The second is the use of sexual imagery to actually raise money. The example Bindel gives of this is a Ryanair cheesecake calendar to raise money for a children’s charity. (You may have to be British to understand why that one makes sense.)

The people behind the specific cases Bindel notes show some pretty fuzzy-headed defenses of their work My personal favorite is this comment by Michael Korzinski from the anti-trafficking organization the Helen Bamber Foundation, regarding a nude campaign by Spice Girl Mel B. According to Korzinski, Mel B  “is exercising her freedom of choice in going naked, unlike the enslaved, brutalised, trafficked women we work with” Seriously? Why can’t we at least be honest that Mel B naked brings a lot of eyeballs to the ads?

I haven’t seen any of the images Bindel describes, so I can’t comment on their sophistication and place on the scale of art or tawdry exploitation, or to what extent they really contribute to a misogynist culture. But this does raise a good question about how much responsibility an NGO has to maintain consistent values in its fund-raising and awareness campaigns. Personally I think that NGOs, especially charities, should follow a careful code or they risk losing their influence on the issues that matter.

This article from the Houston Chronicle argues that a new Western Union product that allows immigrant to send money home by using their cell phones will serve to undermine the US government’s current border security plans (the author disagrees with those plans, and thinks undermining them is a good thing.)

I think remittances are great, and the Western Union system looks like a great product, but I honestly have no idea how it “will make obsolete our current fortress-America insularity, cutting the ground from underneath the border structures now under construction and mocking the infrared cameras and razor-sharp wire designed to repel those hoping to make it to and make it in America.” Any guesses?

The International Food Aid Conference (PDF) will take place next week in Kansas City. This is event the brings together leaders in food aid from 25 countries, including the leaders of the US Government’s chief food aid officials. They’ll be discussing some genuine issues in the field, including the rising price of food internationally and the President’s perfectly rational suggestion that 25% of US food aid be provided with food purchased locally.

Michael Gerson argues that there is a purpose to large aid programs in this wonderful piece on PEPFAR in Zambia.

The American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, published an interesting article on African development today. The author is Deborah Brautigam, a professor of international development at American University. She makes two basic points.

The first is that a developing a more robust system of public taxation would have broad benefits for African societies. Besides the amusement of a conservative think tank recommending that somebody pay more taxes, the point is very good. Not only would increased government revenue allow for better services and stronger state capacity, but Professor Brautigam believes it would also lead to more democratization on the continent. “Democracies are built not only on periodic elections but also on a social contract based on bargaining over the collection and spending of public revenue”. 

Her second point is that foreign aid isn’t all upsides. Aid can have negative effects on the recipient country by lowering local capacities for governance, weakening institutions, reducing democratic accountability, inspiring riskier behavior on the part of governments, and even lowering tax revenues. Some of her points are stronger than others - the tax revenue point seems a little weak to me - but overall she makes a strong case, and the article is well worth a read.

Also, I noticed that she has a book out on the same subject.