Markets can actually serve the public

Social Policy Bonds are poorly received by some, partly because they depend absolutely on markets. Markets have a bad reputation, especially in left-leaning circles for one reason that's justified, in my view, and two that aren't. 

Market forces have been invoked to justify subverted, manipulated, and gamed interventions. One example: leading corporations often seek to change the regulatory environment in ways that inhibit competition. They may have attained their dominance within a competitive market, but once there, they abuse their power to stifle would-be competitors. Very often, they find allies within government, including individuals whom they will reward handsomely with directorships or consultancies once their government careers end. Though the claim is that such behaviour is merely in accordance with free market principles, it is actually the antithesis of competitive behaviour in a free market. We see the results everywhere: grotesquely huge and powerful corporations, stifling or snapping up the competition, and abusing their dominance to influence government in ways that further concentrate their power and wealth. It's a valid reason for being sceptical when, say, a new financial instrument, such as Social Policy Bonds, enters the arena, claiming that the market's incentives and efficiencies can actually be channelled into the public good. 

However,  other reasons for people's disdain of markets are less valid. People see the rewards to those who succeed in a wide array of markets as almost as unjustified as lottery winnings. And there is some truth that those who do so succeed are those who are best placed to take risks. As in most human endeavour luck is important. But less appreciated is that there are risks, and also that profits take time to accumulate. We focus on the millions (or, now, billions) that accrue to the luckiest or most ruthless, or the most efficient operators, many of whom do provide goods and services that improve society's well-being - but we do not account for the time necessary to reap those rewards.

As well, people focus purely on the rewards, often inordinately huge, without seeing that these rewards don't merely enrich a few people at the top. They also increase the supply of the goods or services that generate those riches. Or, they should do, and would do, in competitive markets.

So while I understand people's doubts that markets can serve the needs of all in society, I'd ask them to be open-minded and look in detail at Social Policy Bonds, which, while they would probably make some already wealthy people or organisations even wealthier, at least in the short run, would do so only in strict proportion to their success in solving our social and environmental problems.