Alliance Online - June 2006
Showcasing the possible
Caroline Hartnell
EVENT 5th Annual Global Philanthropy Forum
Date 3-5 April
Venue Washington DC, USA
Organizers Global Philanthropy Forum
Title Policy, Philanthropy, and Social Entrepreneurship: Advancing Social Change
As Global Philanthropy Forum (GPF) founder Jane Wales explained at the start of the Forum, GPF participants are donors and social investors who are committed to systemic change. They are willing to take on big problems, support innovative solutions, and collaborate across sectors and borders to take those solutions to scale. The Forum therefore aimed to answer the question 'where are the ideas?' showcasing ideas in different fields and at different scales and highlighting the opportunities for donors and social investors to make a difference.
Ed Scott, successful business entrepreneur turned philanthropist, told a story of his own progress as a philanthropist that can be seen as emblematic of the whole event. The natural course for a retiring Silicon Valley entrepreneur, he said, is to found a discrete project to fund and manage in a very hands-on 'all over it' way. 'So I took a shot at this hands-on, push-it-up-the-mountain approach but it's not really the way to tackle global problems. You don't have enough money or other resources. What was needed was in-depth alliance to research what was needed to end global poverty.'
But research and poverty analysis are not enough, he said. Aggressive advocacy is needed in order create 'a much bigger movement for global development in the US' and put pressure on politicians to increase aid and improve policy. In 2001 Scott helped found the Center for Global Development, and three and a half years ago he, Bill Gates and George Soros formed DATA. DATA doesn't make investments itself; it advocates for money to go to macro-level solutions.
Bill Clinton had a personal story to tell as well. In his second term, he said, he began thinking about what he would do next. 'I wanted to escape the Quincy Adams dictum "nothing so pathetic as a former president".' Being a former President of the United States rather than a Silicon Valley entrepreneur, the 'hands-on, push-it-up-the-mountain approach' was never going to be attractive. Rather, he decided he would set up a foundation in an area where he could have an impact.
The AIDS initiative exemplifies what NGOs can do that government can't, he explained. Money for AIDS is coming from the Global Fund but sales of AIDS medicines are run like jewelry stores (low volume, high margin) rather than grocery stores (high volume, low margin). What the Clinton Foundation has helped to do is 'organize the market'. They have reached an agreement with five suppliers of generic ARV medications to cut prices drastically, thus vastly increasing the numbers treated. The other thing lacking is infrastructure for distribution. The Foundation is selling medicines in 55 countries and working on infrastructure in 22.
How can GPF participants help? Last year, said Bill Clinton, 500,000 children under 12 died because of AIDS. Only 25,000 got medicines, 15,000 of those in Brazil and Thailand. Immediately after his address, $1million was contributed to the AIDS fund by one of the donors present. I don't know how many extra children that will treat, but I imagine it's a good number.
Ted Turner, also speaking from his own experience, encouraged donors to give now. 'I had billions, then I lost it all ... I think I lost more than any individual in history. If anyone is interested in increasing giving, I advise them to do it now in case they lose their money.' Luckily Turner had given away half his fortune just in time.
Getting the most for your money
The second plenary focused on instruments for social change. 'An idea in the right person's hand is the most powerful force in the world,' said Bill Drayton of Ashoka, so what better than to invest in social entrepreneurs? GPC participants got a chance to see what they can do at the 'Meet the Social Entrepreneurs' session hosted by the International Finance Corporation.
Meanwhile Tim Wirth of the UN Foundation advocated funding of social movements if we want to achieve social change. Civil rights, women's rights, commitments on the environment - these did not come about through anything that happened on Capitol Hill but from social movements, patiently funded, mainly by philanthropy.
Alan Patricof of venture capital firm Apax Partners had yet another suggestion for funders. His starting point was that what is needed is jobs. All start-ups have needed high-risk equity capital, not debt or microfinance - an average $350 microfinance loan can't build a sustainable business. But in Africa and other developing countries equity capital barely exists. Traditional investors are not going to come in at this stage, so foundation capital is most appropriate. Donors should look to maintain the value of the principal, he suggested, but they shouldn't expect high financial returns.
A plethora of ideas
More inspiring and inventive ideas were presented at the Global Philanthropy Forum than this article could possibly cover. Senator Sam Nunn talked about the Nuclear Threat Initiative, whose goal is to strengthen security by limiting the spread of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. Sally Osberg talked about Jeff Skoll's Participant Productions, which aims to use film-making to raise awareness of the need for social change.
Kurt Hoffman of the Shell Foundation introduced a way of engaging with policy that differs from the standard business lobbying and NGO campaigning: building public private partnerships and bringing resources, including money, into the partnership to accomplish a policy goal. He used the example of the Shell partnership with the World Resources Institute and Mexico City's municipal government to bring clean transport to that city. Buses that run on clean technology now handle 250,000 passengers a day, cut cross-town time by half, and eliminate 47,000 tons of greenhouse gases for every bus line running.
Breakout sessions looked at topics such as how to finance global health through innovations. These included the floating of 'immunization bonds' (equity investments in pharmaceuticals doing research into the diseases of the poor) and 'advanced market commitments' whereby philanthropists guarantee the sales of new vaccines and drugs.
Why Washington?
The previous four Forums have all been held in California. Why the change of venue this year? The answer is linked to the conference title, 'Policy, Philanthropy, and Social Entrepreneurship: Advancing Social Change'. As John Morgridge of Cisco Systems pointed out, there is a policy context to everything we do. Whatever we want to do, we won't achieve it without the right policies in place. It therefore made sense to bring the Forum's 600 participants to Washington where the politicians and policymakers are. Also, he added, it wouldn't hurt for Washington policymakers to hear 'what is on our minds'.
Jessica Matthews of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace looked more specifically at the role of policy research. How can think-tanks make a difference, she asked. It's easier in fields that can be affected by private actors other than government, she admitted - for example the environment, as opposed to say peace and security.
There is always a problem of 'this is not for us'. Having a Brazilian co-author had helped acceptance of a report on deforestation in Brazil and had actually led to a change in government policy there. The solution, she said, is to build research capacity in country. Sustained on-the-ground presence over time is vital for good policy research.
Another big problem is follow-up, making sure research gets to the right people. Having research findings translated into local languages can make a huge difference, for a relatively small extra cost - a cost, she suggested, that private funders could pick up if they want to obtain high leverage from their funding.
This subject was also addressed by John Podesta of the Center for American Progress. The Center's aim is to develop new ideas for tackling problems, domestic and international - an energy plan, a healthcare plan, etc. No less than 40 per cent of their budget goes on communicating ideas - inserting progressive ideas into the public dialogue and mainstream media as well as getting them in front of policymakers.
Where is the line?
The final panel comprised the CEOs of five major private foundations and was entitled 'Philanthropy, policy and politics: where is the line?' The discourse in this area has been dominated by discussion of the success of conservative foundations in defining the issues of our time and outlining solutions to them, said moderator Stephen Heintz (Rockefeller Brothers Fund). Should more progressive foundations be taking a leaf from their book and doing the same?
Although there was a consensus among the panellists that foundations should promote debate, carry out advocacy, engage with leaders, be entrepreneurial, they stopped short of wanting to take up the cudgels against the conservative foundations. 'A war of ideas is not the way to achieve a public conversation,' said Sterling Speirn (Kellogg). 'Carnegie believes in free debate of ideas and open discussion,' said Vartan Gregorian (Carnegie Corporation). 'There aren't just two sides to any question. What about the marketplace of ideas?'
The only trouble with this sort of position is that it leaves the field, and the agenda, clear for the right-wing foundations. If one side is fighting a war of ideas and the other isn't, no guessing needed about who will win.
Click here to send this article to a friend
Back to top
| Why should I subscribe to Alliance? |
Subscribe now to Alliance magazine and receive:
|
| Subscribe now to Alliance! |
|
|
| Want to read more? |
| Click here for a free sample copy of Alliance magazine. |
| Enjoyed this article? |
| Click here to send this article to a friend. |
| Other articles... |
| Click here to read the full table of contents for the latest issue of Alliance magazine. |