Philanthropists and aid donors must join forces in these straitened timesBy Michael Green in association with the OECD Development Centre netFWD
Source: The Guardian - Poverty Matters Blog
Private donors cannot be expected to stump up cash without having a say – and the new global partnership must reflect this
Behind the consensual language of partnership lies an uneasy relationship between state and private organisations based on very different attitudes and cultures. The worlds of philanthropic foundations and official donors have been evolving in parallel, and there is often misunderstanding of each other's methods as well as a tendency to keep one another at arm's length.
Less than a decade ago, philanthropy was seen as a sideshow in global development. When I left the Department for International Development (DfID) in early 2007 to write Philanthrocapitalism, most of my colleagues wondered why I was interested in such a marginal issue.
The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness of 2005, for example, made no reference to philanthropy. Why should it? Pledges of extra aid money made at the G8 summit in Gleneagles that year meant signatories had little need to partner with private donors.
Those hopes of plentiful official aid flows were dented by the financial crisis of 2008, however, prompting a search for new ways to finance development and complement official development assistance (ODA).
When the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development development assistance committee (OECD DAC) met again in Busan, South Korea, in 2011, philanthropy had made its way into the communiqué. The G20 went a step further that year by asking Bill Gates, a philanthropist, to write a report on how to finance the millennium development goals (MDGs).
It is only natural that philanthropists welcomed this belated recognition of their contribution to global development with lukewarm enthusiasm. The eagerness of official donors for the "new global partnership" has evidently been driven much less by an interest in the innovative ways philanthropic organisations operate, and much more by the official development community's need to find new forms of financing.
The message to philanthropists is unappealing: give your money through existing aid channels, desist from running your own programmes, and help drum up support for more taxpayers' money for official donors to spend.
The resulting sense that official donors have nothing to learn from philanthropists is a fatal cultural flaw. Yet the fault does not lie with official donors alone. Too many private donors are unaware the MDGs even exist. Too few understand how the official aid system works, or that a type of ecosystem is in place that they should be aware of when they get involved on the ground.
Philanthropists have also, regrettably, lagged behind official donors in embracing the culture of transparency, data sharing and accountability to beneficiaries and to the governments of the countries where they operate.
The Rockefeller and Bill and Melinda Gates foundations, which have built strong partnerships with official donors and engaged with governments in developing countries, are notable exceptions. The Gates foundation has been reporting its aid spending to the OECD DAC since 2011.
The Gates foundation's considerable resources – both its money and its founder's public profile – mean it can negotiate on equal terms with governments. Yet Gates's acknowledgement that even his philanthropic behemoth is "a tiny, tiny organisation", compared with the challenges it faces, reflects that foundations cannot do it alone.
So what should the new global partnership look like? First, there must be joint decision making and shared governance. Official donors cannot expect philanthropic organisations to stump up cash without a seat at the table.
The Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria was an important innovation here: giving private donors and businesses seats on the board made it much more attractive to philanthropists than, say, giving a grant to the World Health Organisation over which they would have little influence. More of these unconventional funding mechanisms and issues-based partnerships will be needed.
Second, partnership works best around specific issues. Like it or not, success breeds success: if philanthropic organisations can see their money having concrete results and tangible impact, further donations are likelier.
As a successful partnership between official and private donors, the Malaria No More campaign is instructive here. Some worry that focusing on success in this way distorts the global development agenda towards quick wins or more media-friendly issues. Maybe so. Suggesting that ODA is immune from faddishness, or the influence of what taxpayers might find "sexy", is a bit of a stretch.
Frankly, finding jobs for unemployed youth in Africa, or getting access to quality education, is likelier to attract funding than statistical capacity building. Moreover, in straitened times, heeding public opinion in donor countries and demonstrating success will be increasingly important.
Third, it is necessary to understand the division of labour. I am optimistic about the potential of the new global partnership because philanthropy can do things official donors cannot. A philanthropic dollar and an ODA dollar are very different. Rather than trying to fill the funding gap in existing official donor programmes, philanthropy should play the role of innovative risk capital in development, testing new ideas that can be scaled by official donors in collaboration with partner governments and local organisations. This is already happening to some degree, as with the partnership between USAid and the Skoll foundation on the Development Innovation Ventures programme.
"Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs", wrote Samuel Huntington in the introduction to his landmark 1993 essay The Clash of Civilisations?. Though still true, the world has changed much in the past 20 years.
The new global partnership, under the post-MDG framework, or as an emanation of the efforts of the post-Busan global partnership for effective development co-operation, must reflect the reality that governments are going to have to work more closely with philanthropic organisations and private actors to solve big global problems. We cannot walk the talk while running on parallel tracks, no matter how fast we go.
|Charity | Multilateral Aid | Food Security | Poverty and Hunger | Development | MDGs | Official Development Assistance (ODA)|
- Pollination and Land Degradation: Top Priorities for New Intergovernmental Body
- ADB Assistance to Typhoon Recovery Reaches $1 Billion
- G8 land deal to boost land rights in Ethiopia
- Australian C20 launches online consultations with civil society
- EDD13: Follow and share sessions via live web-streaming!
- Arab States
- Asia & Pacific
- Civil Society
- Ecology & Environment
- Emergencies, Crises, Conflicts and Disasters
- Finance, Crisis, Money
- Food Security
- Gender Equality
- Global Governance
- Global Partnership
- Human Rights
- Intergovernmental Organizations
- Jobs & Employment
- Multilateral Aid
- North America
- Open Government
- Policy Advocacy
- Poverty and Hunger
- Public–Private Partnership (PPP)
- Russia & Ex-USSR
- South/Latin America