Economist and author of ‘Philanthrocapitalism’ Michael Green contends:
’It’s the politics, stupid,’ seems to be a consensus emerging at a lot of discussions at the Bellagio Initiative Summit. Public and private aid will only be a palliative if the governments of developing countries refuse to make basic investments in the wellbeing of their citizens.
All aid donors need to have an underlying theory of political change. And philanthropic organisations may have a comparative advantage playing in politics compared to official aid agencies. But are philanthropic organisations willing to take the risk of getting stuck into political change when it doesn’t look like traditional charity?
For example, if the poor are disempowered and voiceless, are they well placed to put pressure on government? Maybe the best opportunity for political change is to work with the middle classes, who have a shared interest with the poor in getting government to deliver. If that’s the case, might philanthropists’ best leverage come from investing in golf courses as a way to support a cohesive middle class?
Maybe golf courses is going too far but the point remains: robust theories of change may throw up counter-intuitive interventions. Philanthrocapitalists, who don’t have to justify their actions to donors or voters, are best placed to take such risks.
Some foundations have already spotted the opportunity. George Soros’ Open Society Foundations have been investing in political change since the days of the Cold War. Omidyar Network is building up a portfolio of investments to use new technology to make governments more accountable to citizens. Mo Ibrahim’s African Leadership prize is trying to raise the profile of political leadership as a development issue.
Yes, it is controversial for philanthropists to get involved in politics. Soros has made plenty of enemies. But the job of philanthropy is to make an impact, not to be liked.
Sheela Patel, Director of the Society for the Promotion of Area Resource Centres (SPARC) responds:
Reinventing roles and obligations of all development actors to suit changing times is crucial, but to what end? I think it is important to create equity and inclusion, especially in a fast-changing world where great wealth accumulation co-exists with terrible poverty at local national and international levels.
And of course it is the prerogative of philanthropists and aid providers to develop their theory of change and make investments where they see potential outcomes they seek, but they all don’t have to follow George Soros on where they make investments and build golf courses or services for middle classes to get the government to become accountable to citizens.
And I want to know where middle-class citizens seek benefits for the poor!
And what about poor voters? Data shows that they vote in larger percentages today than the middle class do anyway. So maybe another equally viable alternative is to have philanthropic resources help create voice and accountability of the nation state to the poor, whom most of our governments depend on as vote banks, and help these networks of the poor to measure what the government has done and create expectations and accountability to them.
It is equally necessary for the poor and vulnerable to develop capacity to negotiate for co-existence with the upper classes, who are happy to use the cheap services of the poor, but want them to maintain their invisibility and not share space and resources with them.
2 Like?
One Comment
Perhaps there is an argument for resisting the temptation to work with one and not the other. There is ample historical record, be it in civil rights or labor movements, where the disempowered group had energy and desire, but lacked the luxury of time to develop organization and a voice, while members of the middle class had the opportunity to develop a sense of conscience, and serve as catalyst and bridge between the disempowered and entrenched interests. Either one without the other, however, has greater obstacles to gaining traction and perceived legitimacy.