The world’s best investment: Vitamins for undernourished children, according to top economists
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 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. 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.
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. “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.”
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:
SOLUTION (CHALLENGE)
1 Micronutrient supplements for children (vitamin A and zinc) (Malnutrition)
2 The Doha development agenda (Trade)
3 Micronutrient fortification (iron and salt iodization) (Malnutrition)
4 Expanded immunization coverage for children (Diseases)
5 Biofortification (Malnutrition)
6 Deworming and other nutrition programs at school (Malnutrition & Education)
7 Lowering the price of schooling (Education)
8 Increase and improve girls’ schooling (Women)
9 Community‐based nutrition promotion (Malnutrition)
10 Provide support for women’s reproductive role (Women)
11 Heart attack acute management (Diseases)
12 Malaria prevention and treatment (Diseases)
13 Tuberculosis case finding and treatment (Diseases)
14 R&D in low‐carbon energy technologies (Global Warming)
15 Bio‐sand filters for household water treatment (Water)
16 Rural water supply (Water)
17 Conditional cash transfers (Education)
18 Peace‐keeping in post‐conflict situations (Conflicts)
19 HIV combination prevention (Diseases)
20 Total sanitation campaign (Water)
21 Improving surgical capacity at district hospital level (Diseases)
22 Microfinance (Women)
23 Improved stove intervention (Air Pollution)
24 Large, multipurpose dam in Africa (Water)
25 Inspection and maintenance of diesel vehicles (Air Pollution)
26 Low sulfur diesel for urban road vehicles (Air Pollution)
27 Diesel vehicle particulate control technology (Air Pollution)
28 Tobacco tax (Diseases)
29 R&D and mitigation (Global Warming)
30 Mitigation only (Global Warming)
The results are available at http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com
Is philanthrocapitalism blinded by hype?
I have just been reading “Just Another Emperor? – the Myths and Realities of Philanthrocapitalism” by Michael Edwards. Is philanthrocapitalism really all hype and with little hope of delivering real impact? Well it is still early days so in that case I suppose claiming victory or failure is simply too early. Philanthrocapitalists have real and good intentions, and are generating huge sums to do good with, and are doing a lot of good with it already. This must be applauded, appreciated and leveraged successfully. Michael seems to suggest that most (not all) philanthrocapitalist are blind to their belief that running NGOs like businesses will solve the world’s problems. This is probably not entirely true. Andrew Carnegie’s well know quote, “It is more difficult to give money away intelligently than it is to earn it in the first place” is increasingly something that many new philanthropists and philanthrocapitalists would agree on today.
However there is some risk of failure to the model as there appears to be a need for a better understanding of how change occurs in a development context. Meanwhile, I do believe that here is a real place for business as well as the adaptation of some business practices by NGOs in international development. However we must remember that there are different financial and human resources available to businesses and NGOs and that they are motivated and driven by different forces (one is for profit the other is for “well-being”). Pure philanthrocapitalism I would think works better when some development has already taken place and is more difficult when targeting the really marginalized.
What is noteworthy however is that a truly inefficient business will go out of business whereas this is not necessarily true for a government department or NGO – and I think that this is the real gist here – it is not about whether or not philanthrocapitalists can solve some of the world’s poverty issues more efficiently through social entrepreneurship, or whether civil society groups best represent the marginalised, or whether governments are best at delivering large scale infrastructure – because I believe that all the above can be true as there is a role for everyone according to their core competency in international development– just as all of the above, if undertaken poorly, can fail. However what this entire debate is really about in my mind and what we are all really seeking is well run organisations and initiatives achieving greater impact. Whether that is measured through social-return-on-investment or number of smiles – well that depends on who is measuring and personal values attached. To me being result-oriented in some way is not only crucial but something I truly believe is important (a definite negative trait of philanthrocapitalism according to Michael) – because how else do you even know where you are going – not to mention what you are trying to achieve? To me being more strategic and result-oriented definitely includes taking advantage of business practices and methodologies but it also includes incorporating experience and lessons learned from the development field, understanding the legal, social, economic and political contexts, and working closely with donor and recipient. Although he raises some important issues I think that Michael gives philanthrocapitalists too hard of a time. His conclusion about dialog and better understanding is however a sensible one.
Finally – perhaps the real gem to be further leveraged off philanthrocapitalism is its potential to change mindsets, build an entrepreneurial spirit and the empowerment that comes from getting yourself out of poverty versus receiving aid.
Michael’s book can be downloaded for free from http://www.justanotheremperor.org/
Tom Hunter is strategic about his giving
Tom Hunter is a well known Scottish businessman, entrepreneur, and philanthropist.
Apart from supporting initiatives such as Band Aid, Live 8 and Make Poverty History, he and his wife Marion established the Hunter Foundation in 1998. He is now well known for wanting to give away £1bn to initiatives in Scotland and Africa through his foundation. This is very good news as not only is it a huge sum but Tom Hunter aims to be very strategic about his giving and therefore his giving is likely to have a greater impact.
He treats philanthropy as a business and invests in his team of executers (a Rockefeller approach where “giving is investing”), he leverages his money and actively seeks partnerships, looks at failures as lessons learned ( which indicates that he is less risk adverse and aims for innovation) and use performance indicators with projects reporting back. The Tom and Marion Hunter Foundation will be an interesting space to watch.
The Hunter Foundation http://www.thehunterfoundation.co.uk/
Band Aid Documentary http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0L3OP4MkWW8
Live 8 http://www.live8live.com
Make Poverty History http://www.makepovertyhistory.org/
Is giving away your money undemocratic?
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 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.” (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy)
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.
What is wealth for?
When managing our wealth we might consider the question “what is wealth for?”. For wealth to accomplish its purposes there are many issues to consider including individualised investment portfolios that meet financial objectives, governance structures and taxation.
But the creation and preservation of wealth is usually not the only purpose. If we want a “better future” for our children, to keep our families together in an increasingly global world, and prosper from this global world, we look at issues of next generation education and philanthropy. These are now increasingly issues of great significance and they tie in nicely together. When you get your whole family involved in your philanthropic initiatives you are not only building a better future for all children but you are educating your own at the same time. The next generation will gain business and organisational skills, get personally involved in philanthropic initiatives, the family gets closer together and the world becomes a safer, more prosperous place – a great way to be strategic about your giving and managing succession!
They Come in the Name of Helping
Yesterday I stumbled upon an online film by Peter Brock, undergraduate student from Skidmore College (thanks to Peter Dietz who posting it on his blog on micro-philanthropy http://www.socialactions.com/about-micro-philanthropy).
Peter’s film no doubt correctly identifies some of the main issues in philanthropy and international development. The film is an interview with young people in Sierra Leone and their opinion of international philanthropy. In my view some of the key issues brought up that I am a firm believer in as well, are that:
·Respect and accountability is a two-way street!
·Dignity and personal involvement is key - the latter might appeal to all “New Philanthropists” out there.
·We all share a common humanity.
It is not about a top-down relationship, and it should not be about a “donor” and “beneficiary” relationship – it is relationships and interactions between real people, families and communities!
To watch the film “They Come in the Name of Helping” online go to http://www.baibureh.org/.
How do we measure the success and impact of our giving?
“It is more difficult to give money away intelligently than it is to earn it in the first place.”- Andrew Carnegie, Scots American industrialist and philanthropist
Andrew Carnegie’s well know quote is something that many philanthropists today would agree on. There is also the emerging trend that increasingly people are judged not on how they made their money but how they spend it!
This and the combined fact that charities (or non-governmental organisations) are often seen as less efficient than businesses, the wish of the “New Philanthropist” to transfer their skills to the charity sector (myself fairly guilty), and the risk adversity of many donors, means that donors are now looking for new ways of measuring results and social-return-on-investments (SROI). Rightly so perhaps – it is their investment after all. The trick is – how do we measure the success and impact of our giving?
It is certainly not straight forward. Business skills definitely need to be translated into the charity environment. Also, there is a quest for quick measurable results from a sector that might not be able, prepared or indeed interested in producing these measurements. Moreover, there are charity advisers and websites that disagree on whether to measure accountability and transparency, impact only, or SROI, etc. – further confusing the issue.
Based on my varied experience of being a philanthropist, business management consultant, charity trustee and director, and economist/institutional/financial /gender and socio-economist (yes the titles are confusing) on numerous international development assignments, my answer to how we measure the success and impact of our giving – must be – that there isn’t one … There is no one size fit all solution, method or “right” answer….
Yet – it is indeed possible to measure the impact and success of our given. The real quest is to find a tailored solution that fits both the requirements of the philanthropist and one that the beneficiary feels both happy about and is able to meet. That’s a formula that will work.
http://www.not-just-for-profit.com/
