So first. I just want to thank all of you for completing the assignment. I tried to keep it as uncomplicated as I could.
We didn't have the time get to everyone's experience at their internships, and whether or not Pallotta' points held any truth at your organizations. Jessica talked about the compensation factor and how the employees at Job Path go above and beyond what is required of their pay grade. Christina spoke a little bit about the decision between making money or doing good. Her comments beg the question, is this a fair choice? Between doing good or making money? It is one that many of us are facing (VERA fellows and the undergraduate population in America). Consider the following:
1. Making money or doing good
2. Making money while doing good
3. Making money by doing good
The second (2) seems to imply a passive nature. That yes, you can make money and do good things. But that you can make money one way, and donate some of that money to do good things somewhere else (i.e.- any charitable donation by Wallmart).
The third (3), I would argue, implies the nature of a social entrepreneur. The idea that any profit seeking venture should also seek to serve the common good. I am, of course, aware that the third notion is idealist (almost absurdly so) but it is the goal of the social entrepreneur to somehow shift the way of the market economy from the a combination of (1) and (2), to a culmination of (3).
Viable? Ridiculous? Questions?
Also, I have forwarded two videos to be added to the 'check it out' section. One is the on the MEND program of Invisible Children inc., and the other is for an organization called Falling Whistles. Feel free to comment on both, I would love to hear your thoughts and relay them back to the founders of each organization (because they need to hear them too).
Finally, and I know some of you were disappointed that it didn't happen, in the event of radio silence I would have (seriously would have) recited Macbeth's opening lines in the following scene:
http://www.online-literature.com/shakespeare/macbeth/8/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Thank you very much Lenny for an interesting discussion! As you mentioned in your blog, it is important for everyone to find a way of “making money by doing good”. However, it is difficult to make those choices, especially for us, college graduates, who struggle while searching for a job. I value the idea of making money and donating it to some other organizations. But all the examples that you gave in the class were the examples of how people who donate their money and are already successful. Therefore, my questions to everyone, and Lenny specifically, would be:
• What should we start from if we want to “make money by doing good”? Don’t you think that people have who already accumulated capital can start donating money, not us – college graduates? Therefore, how can we start donating money without actually making it?
• How can we choose making less money by “doing good” instead of making more money by doing worse (our example from the class about water supply)?
Thank you and looking forward for your answers.
I have rarely felt so torn by a discussion in class. Watching the videos,I cannot help but think it's a no brainer to spend our money on products that call attention to social problems or even make a change that more directly redounds to the benefit of a disenfranchised group.On the other hand, what happens when neck whistles (or the cause they represent) are no longer trendy, or people have no disposable income for messenger bags from the Congo? The inequitable sysytem remains in place just as it was before the intervention. Exactly like with non-profit interventions, it seems that there must an additional layer of intrvention that reaches simulatneously into politically treacherous waters rather than just grazing at the feel-good edge of the lake.
I apologize for those typos. I hit publish when I meant to hit preview.
Dear Lenny GREAT CLASS!
Being a Vera Fellow makes me happy for the work and time I donate to the non-profit sector and the skill and experience I gain out of it. While I could have used my time to find a job and make money and gain experience all at once, I joined Vera because I enjoy giving back to the community, whether it is a big or small contribution.
Obama has an idea that students in college should do a certain amount of hours of community service for a portion of their tuition to be paid off. While that may sound like a great give away, to some it doesn't cut it. There are millions of people around the world who if given the time and money would love to donate their time to help those in need, however, since they are placed in a situation where they need to work to eat and live and support themselves, donating time to give back to the needy is often a touchy issue that needs proper attention.
Moreover, when it comes to Non- profits going in the direction and acting as the for profits in that they use the money given to them to advertise for themselves, give employees the proper pay and hours to do the work given to them, and to generate more money, to then re-invest it back to the company is great. However, Prof. Waterston makes a great argument that we don't want to make the public sector die off, while all the necessary resources society needs to survive is being taken up by private companies, and putting a price to necessary resources, such as water.
Therefore, what should be done? Should we have people working for little pay to then not do all the work needed and volunteer time to do what they are suppose to, or do we change the non-profit formula to incorporate profit and better wages and time alloted to employees?
Thanks Lenny for a great class!
I think I have a better understanding of philantropy. I admit I was confused at first, but the class helped to flesh out some of the important aspects of this topic.
I think a number of important issues were raised in class, and I am still processing the new information. Jessica makes an important point about Obama and community hours, and that option has its pros and cons.
I also think that the idea of non profit making a profit can be beneficial in some sense and not-so-beneficial in another sense, but overall, this arena seems to be expanding. Whether it will prove better or worst, we will have to wait and see.
Wonderful class Lenny; any chance to rant about capitalism is always fun. I do have to say though that I would have loved to hear your Macbeth monologue.
I think this conversation woefully begins at the incorrect place ; if first assumes that making money is the pinnacle of achievement. Miriam Edelman Wright at the Justice Awards quoted a survey of Harvard University students that indicated that the most important think to the majority of Harvard students was to be wealthy and famous. Jamie said it best, the United States has it priorities, and “TRULY” helping is simply not one of them. If we are truly concerned with helping others then we will see things like “philanthro-capitalism” for what they truly are, that is, band-aid solutions, appeasement to one of the most violent systems of oppression ever created, capitalism.
NOOOO you shouldn’t make money from doing good. Doing good should be an act that is not tied down by ulterior motive, it must be the ends and not the means to the end; it should not have a particular telos. Potlatch was a practice done by north eastern/pacific coast Native American tribes where individuals would all give away their possessions to show the fact that belongs come and go, but the community is forever. Why do we have to attach helping an individual to money making or to some external motivation? Why is it not a good in and of itself?
I do understand thought that until we come to a fundamental change we have to evaluate how we can create good in the present. I agree that we can make money and do good--to an extent--, and that these two things don’t have to be mutually exclusive; there are compromises that must be made when negotiating the relationship between doing good and making money and one must be careful not to be caught up in the myth of profit and the motive of money, but this is MUCH harder said than done.
Chad Out!
Thank you Jamie for planning a stimulating class and prompting an important discussion. It strikes me that the subject raises more questions than we can answer in a class session or blog. In fact, the theme can be the subject of an entire semester's course. "Philanthrocapitalism" could be a lens through which to dig deeper at critical questions central to society as a whole, the current historical moment, history and the future. Such a course would need to start with serious consideration of the following questions: "what is philanthropy?" and "what is capitalism"? And then students would study serious scholarship to begin answering those questions. But that's for another time.
For now, Lenny's post on "venture philanthropy" and "philanthro-capitalism" brings to my mind these specific questions:
1) Where's the evidence that philanthrocapitalism works?
2) If the problems facing the most vulnerable among us (those in need of "charity") are a result of the inequalities generated by capitalism, why would we then buy into an economic model that has caused the problems in the first place?
3) How can such a model--that is centered on generating profit and capital accumulation--work to ensure human rights and thus serve human needs?
4) Who decides in philanthrocapitalism? Are those who demand rights and "receive" services involved in the decision-making? Why or why not?
5)Does philanthrocapitalism undermine civil society and the public sector (first we need to understand what "civil society" and "the public sector" refer to?)? Mr. Pallotta seems to think the public sector should be displaced by the private sector. Compare his stance to those organizations that support the NGO Code of Conduct,http://ngocodeofconduct.org/ especially Article VI, "NGOs will advocate for policies which promote and support the public sector."
6) What lessons, if any, can we learn from the horrific consequences of World Bank and IMF structural adjustment policies that began in the 1970s, as applied to philanthrocapitalism? Does that history serve as a cautionary tale?
P.S. Suggested summer readings (!) related to these subjects:
1) Disaster Capitalism by Naomi Klein; and 2) Ill Fares the Land by Tony Judt.
In applying the five points Pallotta brought up I felt that the compensation and risk points were relevant to Esperanza. The compensation point is self explanatory. The counselors at Esperanza are paid a fairly low salary and as I have observed the turnover at Esperanza as high. I would be curious to find out if this is in part due to the low salary. In regards to Pallotta’s risk point, Esperanza must be careful not to harm its reputation in anyway. As a result, Esperanza is limited in the amount of risk that can be taken because with risk there is a higher chance of tarnishing Esperanza’s reputation. One wrong move could result in an issue which might result in loss of funders/donations.
I also wanted to comment on the mention of livestrong bracelets and other material items. I feel as though these are fantastic ideas. Not only do objects like live strong bracelets act as daily reminders of its mean to those who wear it or see but it also is a way for “average Joe” to give back. It is mentioned by Pallotta and in the reading that it is often difficult for average people to monetarily give back but something like a bracelet is a great way to get average individuals involved. If the water charity you spoke up made water bottles to support their cause I would seriously consider purchasing one!
This is a really important conversation, which we have only just begun. As Professor Waterston said, we could really use this as a lens for the entire course. In thinking about these issues, you are part of the zeitgeist: there has been an ongoing discussion series on capitalism called the "First Principles" series. The final one is tonight, May 2, and it's free if you are reading this and interested. The topic tonight is "Is Capitalism Moral?" and it is a panel discussion at 6 pm at the NYU Skirball Center, 566 LaGuarida Place, 10012.
In addition, this is an ongoing conversation on WNYC's politics website, "It's a Free Country." Check that out at wnyc.org, especially the capitalism film clips - a very accessible way of entering the conversation. Or you can link to it from the blog's Check It Out section.
Speaking of the blog, you'll notice that there is a new section at the top of the right hand side: "News and Notes." From now on, in this section I'd like to feature upcoming events or something that is happening in the life of a Vera Fellow/Alum. So let me know if there are any events or happenings in your life that you'd like me to include. Also notice that we have a Facebook page. You should have received an invitation to join, but if you haven't you can link there from the blog. I'm not at all fluent in the ways of Facebook, so if you have suggestions for how to improve this, please let me know.
I had rough time thinking about how to respond to the blog. The topic has left me with more questions than statements. Privatization of charities seems scary to me because in a world where so many other aspects of society are switching from the public control to private control, I would have thought charities would be the only refuge that relies totally on the public. Then I wonder if a few of the philanthropist do profit and boost charities with positive intent how much better they could be, instead of solely relying on government funds and donations. The topic seems like a double edge sword in which there are multiple pluses and minuses on both sides. Fear and suspicion causes me to constantly question if less of the public’s influences and power is a good thing in the boosting of charity.
I thought about what Chad said about not mixing money and helping people. I thought I felt the same. And then I thought about the many professions that help people and get paid, basically most. From the doctor who fixes you when you are sick, the teacher who helps you to learn, or the hot dog vendor when you are hungry. Most careers are created because we have needs and wants.
I wish that we could be paid more at our jobs so that we can work less hours, so that we can devote more of our free time unpaid helping. I think that a balance of both would be healthy. Instead we are constantly trying to make ends meet, never having the time to think about someone else, because we are always thinking about ourselves and our families.
Bottom line, our culture promotes money as a measure of success, individualism, and consumption. Until we change those ideals...
@ Waterston: How can we entrust capitalism, a money-hungry/centrist system in which the human being is disregarded rather than embraced, be the solution to the problems which arise from capitalism itself? If people, like you and I, are capable of correcting their own mistakes--digging themselves out of the holes they occasionally find themselves in--then a system RAN by people can do just the same. Granted someone may want an alternative means of solving a problem, a new person to take over or a new system, but at the end of the day capitalism, like any other somewhat functioning system, can fix its mistakes.
@ Chad: Why do we have to attach helping an individual to money making or to some external motivation? Why is it not a good in and of itself? We don't have to. And a good deed is a good deed is a good deed. But frankly, any self-sustaining operation is going to be more likely to keep going, to affect more people, and be in existence for a longer period of time--excluding corruption, management issues or anything else which can, objectively, plague any institution and run it into the ground. Hence an operation which can fund itself, rather than being a middle-man asking for handouts for the poor, abused, or unfortunate while wearing cleaner clothes and speaking more articulately, will be able to reach more people. Furthermore, they will also be able to attract more high-quality people to work for them and brainpower is always a good asset.
@ Christina: The doctor, food vendor analogy was very interesting. Seeing such issues from such a different perspective sheds a new light on the matter.
@ Nadiya: Fortunately there are people who seek to help those around them selflessly. Fortunately these people find, or even make, time to do this. I suspect, however, that there are more people who would be doing these "good things" if they can make a living for themselves. If it was their job, and not their charity work.
Hopefully philanthro-capitalism will help solve some of the issues regular philanthropists cannot.
Nadiya- I'm not sure I understand your question. The philanthrocapitalist who donates money is often independently wealthy, yes, but the social entrepreneur on the receiving end is usually in the same position as you might find yourself. Young, talented but lacking the funds to implement their 'great idea'. The donors, have always been, and will always be, those who have the money to give. The shift is not in who the donors are, but in who they donate to. On your second question, I argue that if we don't have to choose between making money and doing good, we will be less likely to choose to making more money by doing 'bad'. Of course there is no evidence to support this claim...
Prof. Stein- I definitely agree that any approach to solving a social justice issue needs to be on more than one level. I think this goes back to the 'give a man a fish- teach a man to fish' debate. I often think about what happens when it's no longer trendy (as it has become) to wear TOMS and a Falling Whistle. Entire micro-economies run the risk of shutting down and leaving participants in a position that may even be worse than where they began. I'm honestly not confident that people consider this outcome when they come up with their buy a bracelet-or whatever-campaigns. What should be happening, is that governments should take note of the relief being provided by non-profits and look towards solving the base issues while non-profits focus on alleviating immediate suffering. At least, that's what I think should be happening.
Jessica- Personally, I think that it is an absolutely necessity to provide non-profits the same opportunities that for-profits have. And at the top of that list is better wages for employees, as this will hopefully encourage the best and the brightest to work for the non-profit sector even as they are being recruited by the large corporations. I can't wrap my head around any significant delcine in the public sector. If only because I'm always thinking that any public sector operation is a business. They are providing a service, at a cost, so their interest is in preserving their operation. I don't see non-profits challenging that status, at least not soon enough to predict what that might even look like.
Chad- Did I tell you that my back up plan if the class didn't go well (and Macbeth couldn't save me) was to say something that I knew you would disagree with and just let you rage on until 12pm? Seriously though, I'm quite impressed with your willingness to even discuss philanthrocapitalism, let alone your end conclusion that perhaps until there is a fundamental shift (which I do agree is needed, but unfortunately do not see happening in my lifetime) there might be room for social entrepreneurs. Might I ask though, on motivation v. result, would you prefer someone to 'do good' with a profit motivation (assuming the result will be the same as someone who does good because 'they know it's right')or for the profit minded person to do nothing at all, because their motivation is, in some sense, wrong? Further, could the result be the same? Or will the motive always affect the outcome?
Prof. Waterston- Well there is no evidence of the success of philanthrocapitalism as a system, just as there is no evidence of its failure. What we do have are ongoing projects that, so far, have been achieving the goals the founders set out. It's simply too early to reject philanthrocapitalism on the basis of 'it hasn't been proven'. Really, it has barely been given a chance. Your questions are loaded, and would take more time than I have to address them respectfully and accurately (as I am not an expert and don't claim to be). But I will say two things. First, Pallotta is somewhat of a radical. As one of the first people to propose shifts in the non-profit sector, he had the space to throw out ideas relatively un-checked. But I do recommend that you read his book 'Uncharitable' as it fleshes out the points in his interview and provides a context for his theories. Second, I don't think that a discussion about the IMF or World Bank is relevant or useful when trying to predict flaws of philanthrocapitalism and social entrepreneurship. The diversion for me is surrounded mostly upon regulation (lack of) and exploitation when it comes to the operations of those institutions. The comparison seems logical, which I think is mostly the fault of the word 'philanthrocapitalism', but the lack of attention (by proponents or critics) to a connection in this way speaks to any connections being artificial. Also, the Naomi Klein book you recommend, it's The Shock Doctrine right? I have read it, and I don't disagree... I do have some notes though.
Katie- I'm glad you made the connection to Esperanza, working there is really what influenced my focus on Pallotta's 5 factors. Especially the turn over with the counselors. And you CAN buy a Charity Water bottle. Check out their website!
I'm going to stop typing now, but before I do I just want to highlight Prof. Reitz's use of the term "Zeitgeist". When I say that being a humanitarian/ social entrepreneur/ do gooder is trendy, this is the term I would have used if I hadn't already been throwing terms at you guys all semester. How do you guys feel about the idea that humanitarianism is "the spirit of our time?"
Hi all, while getting ready to leave for class this morning, I had two further thoughts about this topic, though don't know if anyone will be looking at the blog at this point:
1) the non-profit sector is already intimately tied in w/ the larger capitalist political economy of which it is a part. It is not separate from it, just as the so-called "underground" economy or "informal" sector is part and parcel of the formal economy. We only imagine it is separate from it. That doesn't mean it is exactly the same but it does mean that there is opportunity to (do the research) and assess if it better to get even more integrated into or to maintain as much distance from the for-profit sector as possible.
2) Question for Lenny: you dismiss examination of any lessons to be learned from the history of World Bank/IMF but I'm left wondering why or how you know there's no relevancy there.
See you all very soon!
Post a Comment