The problem with philanthropy is that philanthropists and their employees are reluctant to relinquish control over how their goals shall be achieved and who shall be seen to be achieving them. (Politicians are similar in that respect, but we have higher expectations of wealthy individuals with noble intentions spending their own money.) Sadly, this wish not only to be a benefactor to humanity, but to be seen to be such a benefactor means that our biggest, most urgent challenges are being neglected. Philanthropists - and politicians - want to be identified with successful initiatives. It's a natural human tendency, but it's holding us back. Society is too complex for most of our serious social and environmental problems to be to be traced to a discrete set of causes. Insecticide-drenched bed nets might be the best way of dealing with malaria somewhere at some time - but not everywhere, and not always. We need a policy environment that encourages initiatives that are capable of adapting to differing and changing circumstances, and that have a long term focus on achieving outcomes.
Which is where the Social Policy Bond idea can play a role. Under a bond regime the role of philanthropists - or government - would be limited to supplying and raising funds to be used to redeem the bonds, and defining the outcome that they wish to achieve. They would not stipulate how that outcome is to be achieved, nor who will achieve it. By relinquishing those powers, groups of philanthropists or governments could greatly expand the range of goals they could target to include such global goals as sustained periods of world peace or climate stability - goals that have no single, identifiable cause, and that will necessarily take many years to achieve. It would be unfortunate if, solely because of people's wish to be publicly identified with successful initiatives, our most urgent problems depend for their solution on a small number of dedicated people with pitifully inadequate resources.
No comments:
Post a Comment