<incom> Ramdas on Venture Philanthropy

[Soenke Zehle]

Kavita N Ramdas' essay is part of od's philanthropy series, Soenke

<http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/globalisation/philanthrocapitalism_in_denial>
<http://www.opendemocracy.net/editorial_tags/philanthrocapitalism>

"These realities notwithstanding, there is little if any evidence that 
"philanthrocapitalism" is interested in looking at such structural 
realities, or examining the root causes of current economic or political 
inequality and injustice. On some level, it might be absurd to expect it 
to do so. Indeed, many activists and economic analysts - including Nobel 
laureates Amartya Sen and Joseph Stiglitz - argue that the developing 
world's most pressing problems could be effectively solved by changing 
the terms of political and economic power within the current system. 
Again, Vandana Shiva makes a valid point, that "it may not be about how 
much wealthy nations and individuals can give, so much as how much less 
they can take."

The new philanthropy is nowhere near asking this question. It seems 
motivated by technological solutions, the same "fix-the-problem" 
mentality that allowed these business people to succeed as hedge-fund 
managers, capital- market investors, or software-developers. This 
"philanthropy" is designed to yield measurable and fairly quick 
solutions. A symptom of this may be found in the kind of skills that new 
foundations are seeking. I am struck by how few social scientists are 
employed at the new "mega-philanthropies". Instead, the people required 
are management consultants, business people, and scientists, who must 
demonstrate their "expertise" on specific issues - climate change, 
agricultural productivity, soil quality, or infectious disease. The 
nuance and inherent humility of the social sciences - willing to be 
perplexed and to struggle with multifaceted aspects of a problem - has 
no cachet in the realms of "technocracy".

Even the complex issue of "gender" has been neatly broken down into 
specifics - ending maternal mortality, educating girls, increasing the 
incomes of women. On the board of the Global Fund for Women (GWF), 
activists from around the world have become wary of the term "invest in 
women", because they see the language of economic profit appropriating a 
much richer and multihued landscape relating to women's status and 
position in their families and communities.

The GWF and similar organisations have worked for years to explain that 
women's rights live in the murky and unclear intersections between 
economic inequalities, discriminatory traditional and cultural 
practices, political and personal lack of power, and violence - in the 
home, in intimate relationships, and on the streets and battlefields. 
For this reason, the Global Fund for Women has sought to support women's 
own articulations of their struggle for justice and equality by working 
at various levels and within all the structures where women and girls 
are systematically disempowered. Yet, as we seek to raise funds from new 
sources, we find ourselves struggling for ways to "sell" our model - 
even as we hope it can become one that the philanthrocapitalists will 
emulate!

Many of us working in this field are increasingly concerned by our 
instinctive tendency to "follow the money". Yet, as Michael Edwards 
correctly points out, those of us who have been social-justice advocates 
and activists before we became "professional non-profit leaders" know 
all too well that it is social movements and their ability to hold both 
governments and the private sector accountable, that are truly going to 
change our world (Colin Greer of the New World Foundation echoes this 
argument in his own article, "Philanthropy as solidarity" [21 April 
2008]). So, even as we seek to figure out how to raise next year's 
budget and which new foundations we will pursue, we simultaneously fill 
our strategic plans with pledges and commitments to be engaged in 
movement-building."