<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>not-just-for-profit.com Blog &#187; Accountability, Transparency, Efficiency</title>
	<atom:link href="http://not-just-for-profit.com/blog/index.php/category/the-new-philanthropist/accountability-transparency-efficiency/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://not-just-for-profit.com/blog</link>
	<description>by Bettina Grönblom Hammerich</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Jun 2008 11:55:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>The world’s best investment: Vitamins for undernourished children, according to top economists</title>
		<link>http://not-just-for-profit.com/blog/2008/06/21/the-world%e2%80%99s-best-investment-vitamins-for-undernourished-children-according-to-top-economists/</link>
		<comments>http://not-just-for-profit.com/blog/2008/06/21/the-world%e2%80%99s-best-investment-vitamins-for-undernourished-children-according-to-top-economists/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Jun 2008 11:41:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Bettina Gronblom Hammerich</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Accountability, Transparency, Efficiency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Strategic Giving and Impact]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://not-just-for-profit.com/blog/2008/06/21/the-world%e2%80%99s-best-investment-vitamins-for-undernourished-children-according-to-top-economists/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Climate change is a reality but apparently the Kyoto Protocol might not be the most cost-effective way of addressing it. Bjorn Lomborg argues that we are better of spending our funds on saving lives than on saving the planet. The Copenhagen Consensus 2008 aims to priorities a series of proposals for dealing with ten great [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><font face="Calibri"><span lang="EN">Climate change is a reality but apparently the Kyoto Protocol might not be the most cost-effective way of addressing it. Bjorn Lomborg argues that we are better of spending our funds on saving lives than on saving the planet. </span>The Copenhagen Consensus 2008 aims to priorities a series of proposals for dealing with ten great global challenges. These challenges are: Air pollution, Conflicts, Diseases, Education, Global Warming, Malnutrition and Hunger, Sanitation and Water, Subsidies and Trade Barriers, Terrorism, Women and Development. <span lang="EN">Bjorn Lomborg and his team of 50 leading economist, including 5 Nobel Laureates winners, were asked what the best way to advance global welfare was and in doing so have tried to rank the world’s global challenges using cost-benefit analysis. </span></font></p>
<p><font face="Calibri"><span lang="EN">Meanwhile, other development economist like Jeffrey Sachs think it is misleading to present action on global warming, malaria or nutrition as either-or options, and some other critics of the attempt say factors such as social justice, ecological stewardship and political acceptability are also important and very difficult to price. Lomborg however argues that whereas there are other issues that matter as well as a cost-benefit analysis you need to put prices and values on things as only then is it possible to make informed choices. <em>“Too often, it’s the most photogenic and PR-friendly options that get priority. We want to step back and ask what’s actually most worthwhile.”</em><br />
</span></font><font face="Calibri"> </font></p>
<p><font face="Calibri">Ten challenge papers, commissioned from acknowledged authorities in each area of policy, set out proposals for the panel of economists to consideration. Based on the costs and benefits of the solutions, the panel ranked the proposals, in descending order of desirability, as follows:<br />
</font><strong><font face="Calibri"> </font></strong></p>
<p><strong><font face="Calibri">SOLUTION (CHALLENGE)<br />
</font></strong><font face="Calibri">1 Micronutrient supplements for children (vitamin A and zinc) (Malnutrition)<br />
</font><font face="Calibri">2 The Doha development agenda (Trade)<br />
</font><font face="Calibri">3 Micronutrient fortification (iron and salt iodization) (Malnutrition)<br />
</font><font face="Calibri">4 Expanded immunization coverage for children (Diseases)<br />
</font><font face="Calibri">5 Biofortification (Malnutrition)<br />
</font><font face="Calibri">6 Deworming and other nutrition programs at school (Malnutrition &#038; Education)<br />
</font><font face="Calibri">7 Lowering the price of schooling (Education)<br />
</font><font face="Calibri">8 Increase and improve girls’ schooling (Women)<br />
</font><font face="Calibri">9 Community‐based nutrition promotion (Malnutrition)<br />
</font><font face="Calibri">10 Provide support for women’s reproductive role (Women)<br />
</font><font face="Calibri">11 Heart attack acute management (Diseases)<br />
</font><font face="Calibri">12 Malaria prevention and treatment (Diseases)<br />
</font><font face="Calibri">13 Tuberculosis case finding and treatment (Diseases)<br />
</font><font face="Calibri">14 R&#038;D in low‐carbon energy technologies (Global Warming)<br />
</font><font face="Calibri">15 Bio‐sand filters for household water treatment (Water)<br />
</font><font face="Calibri">16 Rural water supply (Water)<br />
</font><font face="Calibri">17 Conditional cash transfers (Education)<br />
</font><font face="Calibri">18 Peace‐keeping in post‐conflict situations (Conflicts)<br />
</font><font face="Calibri">19 HIV combination prevention (Diseases)<br />
</font><font face="Calibri">20 Total sanitation campaign (Water)<br />
</font><font face="Calibri">21 Improving surgical capacity at district hospital level (Diseases)<br />
</font><font face="Calibri">22 Microfinance (Women)<br />
</font><font face="Calibri">23 Improved stove intervention (Air Pollution)<br />
</font><font face="Calibri">24 Large, multipurpose dam in Africa (Water)<br />
</font><font face="Calibri">25 Inspection and maintenance of diesel vehicles (Air Pollution)<br />
</font><font face="Calibri">26 Low sulfur diesel for urban road vehicles (Air Pollution)<br />
</font><font face="Calibri">27 Diesel vehicle particulate control technology (Air Pollution)<br />
</font><font face="Calibri">28 Tobacco tax (Diseases)<br />
</font><font face="Calibri">29 R&#038;D and mitigation (Global Warming)<br />
</font><font face="Calibri">30 Mitigation only (Global Warming)</font></p>
<p><font face="Calibri"><br />
</font><font face="Calibri">The results are available at http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com<br />
</font> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://not-just-for-profit.com/blog/2008/06/21/the-world%e2%80%99s-best-investment-vitamins-for-undernourished-children-according-to-top-economists/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is giving away your money undemocratic?</title>
		<link>http://not-just-for-profit.com/blog/2008/04/03/is-giving-away-your-money-democratic/</link>
		<comments>http://not-just-for-profit.com/blog/2008/04/03/is-giving-away-your-money-democratic/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Apr 2008 18:29:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Bettina Gronblom Hammerich</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Accountability, Transparency, Efficiency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Strategic Giving and Impact]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://not-just-for-profit.com/blog/2008/04/03/is-giving-away-your-money-democratic/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Strategic giving is about values, efficiency, results and impact but it should also be about matching these values with societal needs. Sometimes the latter is missed and this is has on occasion given rise to the question of the “democracy” of philanthropy.  One definition of democracy reads as follows:
“government by the people; a form of [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><font face="Calibri" size="3">Strategic giving is about values, efficiency, results and impact but it should also be about matching these values with societal needs. Sometimes the latter is missed and this is has on occasion given rise to the question of the “democracy” of philanthropy.  One definition of democracy reads as follows:</font></p>
<p><font face="Calibri" size="3">“government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.” (</font><a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy"><font face="Calibri" size="3">http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy</font></a><font face="Calibri" size="3">)</font></p>
<p><font face="Calibri" size="3">Truly effective giving considers values, undertakes thorough research and achieves impact. Without a giving strategy it is unlikely that the philanthropist will be successful, without a strategy it is difficult to point out results and hence there is no accountability. In order to assure accountability and democracy the successful philanthropist will engage with the community and beneficiary because how else can results be measured successfully? Hence the conclusion must be that successful philanthropy meeting the needs of the community it is targeting is “democratic” –emphasis on successfully meeting the needs.</font></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://not-just-for-profit.com/blog/2008/04/03/is-giving-away-your-money-democratic/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.305 seconds -->
