Africa's Moment
Global Social Benefit Incubator
Global Social Benefit Incubator 2008
Exercise 1: Target Market Statement
GSBI 2008
GSBI 2008 Application
Contact Us
Press Room
Document Actions
CGI Friday Plenary on Rural Innovation -- Why Do You Give?
I had a bad reaction to this morning's panel. Leave a comment to help me figure it out.
This morning's plenary was titled, The Global Impact of Rural Innovation. Participants were Jacques Aigrain of Swiss Re, Wangari Muta Maathai of Kenya's Green Belt Movement, Elsie Meeks of First Nations Oweesta Corporation, Rick Warren of Saddleback Church, Mohammad Yunus of Grameen Bank and moderated by Steve Gunderson of the Council on Foundations.
The discussion was about how to address the poverty, education, economic development and other vital challenges in areas of rural poverty. All of the people involved have done a great deal to help bring assistance to people. But there was a point in the discussion where I started to react in a very negative way to what they were saying. I'm hoping I can stimulate some discussion here of the things that are bothering me.
My trouble began when Muhammed Yunnis was talking about how his micro lending ideas mean that philanthropy can "invest" in ways that bring a greater "return" than traditional models of giving. He says that a dollar, given as a business, can become perpetual and circulate forever. The dollar comes back and can be given again. He said that you can see see philanthropy that way. he doesn't expect a profit from his philanthropic investment but using a business model it can be extended.
Somewhere in there Wangari Muta Maathi was talking about bringing investment dollars to Kenya, and it occurred to me that she has adopted the language of investment bankers. But of course she needs to do that for the same reason Willie Sutton robbed banks: it's where the money is.
Introducing the language of business into philanthropic culture might be necessary -- because business is where the money is. So attracting philanthropic partnerships to support an organization's efforts requires adapting to the culture and therefore the language of the money. It recognizes that governments are starved of resources but it does not address the root causes of this problem. Shouldn't philanthropy help get to the deeper roots of core problems, like governments being starved of resources even while a very few who control those businesses become ever wealthier?
At some point in this discussion Rick Warren used the old line about giving someone a fish he (or she) eats for a day but he adds do not just teach someone how to fish but teach how to sell a fish. Then you start to create a market economy. Through local churches his organization teaches people how to set up a market economy. He said that just giving to the poor makes them dependent.
I started thinking about this. It kind of sounds like he thinks of people as some kind of animal, like squirrels. You start giving a squirrel food and it might become dependent. But people? Don't people have brains and ambition and independence and the power to decide to better themselves? Doesn't this view deny the power of the human spirit? And doesn't it place philanthropy in some kind of parental role instead of a partnering role?
So then I realized what was bothering me about what Yunus was saying. His promise of a perpetual dollar, where you can "invest" a philanthropic dollar and it will just give again and again and again, seems to me to create an unrealistic expectation about giving. I fear that using this kind of language for the idea of giving could make philanthropists dependent.
All of this it begs the question: why do you give? Is giving an "investment" for which one should expect a "return?" Or is that something else? Of course you want your work to be effective, so metrics and follow-up are important. But "invest" and "return?" Do those words reflect giving that comes from a love and respect for fellow humanity and the hope to alleviate suffering? Does the language of business change the meaning and value to the giver of the gift? I wonder if seeing people as economic units in a market diminishes their humanity?
Leave a comment.
The Real Meaning of "Sustainability"
I stand with Rick Warren. Charity is the answer to short term crisis only and not the solution to systemic poverty. Aid should almost immediately transit to a market driven solution or it risks exacerbation of the problem. Economic instability goes hand in hand with civil and political instability. Quoting one of the 21st Centuries lesser known Popes: Leo XIII '... there can be no social justice without economic justice." Mazlow's Hierarchy tells us that survival is paramount. Until one can feed ones self and their family all else is folly. As to the Fish cliche, one must do both. Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today, teach him how to fish and you have fed him for life...right? Wrong, for if we do not give him the fish first, the man and his familiy may well be dead before they learn how to fish. Giving the Fish is the proper role of charity. Teaching marketing is another level of issue.
What we need here is a blended solution. First, Charity (grants, NGO's, Civil Society) provides the survival resource needed to bridge the crisis. Then steps in the market forces with knowledge and Capital investment. Just as in the developed world where the SME (small medium enterprise) provides the majority of new jobs so it is everywhere. We're not talking street vendors, but growth potential business that can generate jobs and provide the foundations of a commercial infrastructure.
You will note that in the above paragraph, I put knowledge (actually knowledge capital) ahead of investment capital. The major failing of many well conceived market interventions is that they short change the BDS (business development services) Strategically and fundamentally knowledge is in shorter supply than investment capital. Without the knowledge and skill necessary to manage a growing business invested capital is soon wasted. Many NGO's have experienced that exact problem in attempting to provide investment capital at the bottom of the pyramid.
When one talks about community economic development, often they mean infrastructure projects like roads and facilities... I believe Community economic development comes one business at a time. As in raising a child, it can't be done by writing a check. It is accomplished by a long-term commitment. So it is with any business. If we would have a measurable effect upon global poverty, then we must create the commercial conditions necessary for sustainable commerce. It is not the best way, it is the only way.