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
 

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/    

“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.

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!

http://www.not-just-for-profit.com/index.html