Why Should Philanthropies Meddle in Affairs of Governments?

The past year’s devastating (unfinished) chronicle of financial infrastructure wobbliness underscores the now almost 80-year-old Keynesian notion that markets by themselves aren’t the infallibly, self-correcting mechanisms that econometricians have pushed so hard. The unprecedented and much-needed bailouts of the key financial institutions on Wall Street that are the instruments and drivers of a nation’s economic well-being are at the heart of why corporate philanthropies can and should do more to make global society a more equitable and livable entity regardless of politics. If we so grandly proclaim to understand the interconnectedness of a global society then the few statistics below about that society should give us pause:

· A billion people ---one in six---live on less than a dollar a day.
(http://ask.yahoo.com/20060111.html)

· Some 1.1 billion people in developing countries have inadequate access to water, and 2.6 billion lack basic sanitation. (http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats

· Of the 57 million people worldwide who died last year, about 10.5 million were children less than five years old. The majority of these children ---about 98%---were in developing nations. (http://www.care.org/campaigns/childrenpoverty/index.asp?source=170740250000&WT.srch=1)

· Malaria affects 300-500 million annually, mostly pregnant women and children and mostly in tropical countries and Africa. (http://www.charity.org/site/c.gtJUJfMQIqE/b.2401643/)

The statistics are overwhelming; the need apparent. So why isn’t an approach such as Bill Gates’ proposal that the world’s large corporations do more for the poor not a no-brainer?

The arguments range from all over the spectrum: Business jealousy (Microsoft single-mindedly demolished its competitors and paid no heed to world poverty till now) on one hand to singular faith in free market mechanisms whereby the responsibility of corporations is to its stockholders to provide maximum value of their investment and philanthropy is secondary. Somewhere in-between those two extremes lie the political arguments: The welfare and care of a country’s citizens is the role of governments, not corporations. Business entities should do what’s lawful ---pay fair wages, provide insurance, etc; ---and that the term “creative” is a slur on capitalism, which is, according to the enthusiasts, a well-oiled mechanism for delivery of goods and services unless impeded by government interference. (http://creativecapitalism.typepad.com/)

Given the statistics of poverty and inequality, the time is ripe for alternatives to the traditional mechanisms of relief and development. Muhammad Yunus’ Grameen Bank
(http://www.grameen-info.org/) would not have seen the light of day if Yunus had stayed with lending models of traditional banking. Governments, even so-called functioning democracies, often do not provide for their citizenry (Zimbabwe is the most visible example of such a government). And governments in the “first world”---the U.S. see the need for infrastructure support of an unprecedented scale.

Corporations, with clearly defined philanthropic goals, using business-world metric analyses and evaluations and targeting specific issues that are critical for development growth are essential in our present-day interconnected world. Philanthropy is not an adjunct to a prosperous society; it needs to be regarded as an active arm of civil society in a global economy.